Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
No Ban on Assault Weapons! by poasterchild No Ban on Assault Weapons! by poasterchild
Please disseminate widely, thank you! This does not give permission to alter or claim credit for this re-mixed work, for which I retain all copyrights. The original illustration is in the public domain.

If you disagree with the views expressed here, please be sure to read my Policy Statement BEFORE you post: [link]

I realize my position on this issue is going to offend many. Before you start ranting however, do yourself a favor and take a few minutes to read some history about why the Framers wrote the Second Amendment the way they did and why they were so concerned that average people have unfettered access to military-style weapons. Stephen Halbrook has an excellent history of the pre-Revolutionary events that led to the framing of the Second Amendment here: [link]

If any class of personal firearms is deserving of and is in fact Constitutionally protected, it is semi-automatic rifles including civilian versions of the military M-14, M-16, and M-4 rifles; in other words, the A-15. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Miller (1939) that a sawed-off shotgun was not to be protected under the Second Amendment because "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Thus, by extension, military-style semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are protected precisely because they do have such a reasonable relationship to the preservation of a well-regulated militia.

The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It is not even wholly about personal self-defense. It is about every able-bodied citizen being (1) well-trained in the use of firearms and (2) in personal possession of same (this is the meaning of "well-regulated") should they be called upon to provide for the common defense in times of insurrection, invasion, or other national emergencies. And most of all, the Second Amendment was included because the Founders explicitly desired to assure that the people could resist assaults upon their liberty from a government that had turned against its own citizens. This was their experience with the British -- an escalating pattern of warrantless searches and seizures of persons and things at and away from their homes culminating in the British attempt to seize the personal weapons stored in the homes of some 30 colonists in Lexington, Massachusetts. We all remember how that particular infringement worked out for our British friends.

Many people are fond of quoting V's famous line, "People should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people." The Second Amendment is the guarantor of that ideal.

I do not feel that we have descended into tyranny quite yet. Yet, if you think about what has happened in this country in recent years -- NDAA, rendition, organized and officially sanctioned torture, H.R. 347, CISPA, illegal surveillance, warrantless intercepts of telephone and email, the militarization of local police forces, and, claims by the President of his right to assassinate American citizens (and his actually doing so), to unilaterally strip them of their citizenship and deport or rendition them, one cannot help but wonder about the wisdom of denying people access to the very weapons that one day may have to be called upon to defend their liberty. Although it is fashionable for progressives to poo-poo this line of thought as paranoid, both our own history and the history of Western democracy from the time of Magna Carta teach the lesson that liberty is best safeguarded by an armed populace that can serve as a counterweight to the State's claim to a monopoly on the sanctioned use of violence to achieve political ends.

Having said all of this, I want everyone to understand that I was horrified by the events in Newtown, Connecticut. However, none of the specific proposals put forth by Senator Feinstein, the White House, and the anti-gun lobby -- a ban on "assault weapons," restrictions on magazine capacity, and closing the so-called "gun show loophole" -- would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown. And further, understand that even if those proposals become law they will do nothing to remove the literally millions of these weapons and the high capacity magazines that have already been lawfully manufactured. Those would be grandfathered in and would remain legal. Only manufacture or importation after the effective date of the proposed legislation would be prohibited.

The NRA is right: properly trained armed security might have prevented what new gun laws cannot. That's why armed security is already present at one-third of America's schools. Mr. LaPierre was not talking about deploying untrained amateurs. The NRA, with 11,000 professional police firearms trainers, does most of the firearms training for police today. Mr. LaPierre proposed deploying them to train people with appropriate backgrounds for these volunteer assignments.

One other thing would have prevented Adam Lanza's rampage -- a gun safe. That his mother chose to keep firearms and ammunition unsecured in a home where a developmentally disabled and possibly mentally ill young adult also lived strikes me as the soul of irresponsibility. If she was concerned enough to tell a babysitter "don't turn your back on him," and was apparently considering committing him to a psychiatric facility, shouldn't common sense have dictated that she keep her weapons under lock and key?

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . . . Wherever . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

-- St. George Tucker, American Patriot
Add a Comment:
 
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2014
you know what i find real funny here? (sorry had to point this out) is that the gun the statues holding is a single-shot musket whose capabilities where no where near to those of an assault weapon (which are generally semi-automatic or automatic)
Reply
:iconx-skaiguardian-x:
x-SkaiGuardian-x Featured By Owner Dec 6, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm sure you know as well as I do there's no such thing as "assault weapons." Nothing more than a label put on semi-auto weapons that LOOK like their military counterparts, dragging similar firearms along with them. Assault rifles are already banned from production for civilian ownership since '86 or '87, so anti-gun advocates wanted to make sure anyone who didn't know firearm laws or how they functioned would be convinced you could just walk into a 7-11, put down cash, and walk out with a machine gun. Hence, "assault weapons."

And it's only a step. First it was an attempt to take handguns. Then it was an attempt to stop sales of "military-style" weapons. This time around it's going to be an attempt to force people to voluntarily turn said weapons. It will not even get that far, but if it does, the next stop will be handguns again, then "grandpappy's huntin' rifle" and shotguns. All in the name of "saving us from ourselves". Meanwhile, criminals are NOT going to give up their arms. I don't know about any of you, but I want to be equally or better armed than someone breaking into my home.

If that doesn't get through to you, think about this. An AR-15 fires a 5.56x45/.223 Rem round from a closed bolt, once per trigger pull. A Ruger Mini-14 fires a 5.56x45/.223 Rem round from a closed bolt, once per trigger pull. One comes standard with a pistol grip, collapsing stock, and flash suppressor. The other comes in a standard, old school "ranch rifle" stock. Both are within the same price range. Both are nearly impossible to hide while walking around. Both are functionally the same. But to tell me I don't NEED the AR because it LOOKS like an M4 or M16 and therefore CAN'T have it is just ridiculous.

ALL rifles (assault style, hunting, or otherwise) last year were used to kill about 300 people. Out of about 50,000 gun deaths.
Reply
:iconxfirefox45x:
XFirefox45X Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2014
Even if we banned them people would still have the
them. However there should be a stricter buying rules
Reply
:iconryu238:
ryu238 Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2014
...well this is surprising coming from you...but whatever.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Although I detest where they have wandered off to, the NRA is right on this issue.  There is a strong Constitutional case that argues that if anything, so-called assault weapons deserve special protection under the Second Amendment.  My own political understanding is that the Framers intended the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) as a package deal.  It was the price that was demanded by the Jeffersonians (the anti-Federalists) for support of the more centralizing vision of the Constitution put forth by Hamilton and the other Federalists.  You cannot pick and choose among civil liberties -- you either support all of them all of the time or you support none of them.  It comes down to this: citizens own personal firearms; subjects don't.

I'd be curious to know your thoughts about the following:


The Inconvenient Second Amendment

In 1989, nearly 20 years before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller [1] affirming that the Constitution does indeed embrace an individual right to keep and bear arms, the distinguished liberal Constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson published a prescient article in the Yale Law Journal titled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.” [2]

In speculating as to why the Second Amendment has historically received such scant attention from Constitutional scholars (compared, for example, to the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments), Professor Levinson, whose article was actually a plea for reasoned discussion among legal scholars on the meaning and implications of the so-called “forgotten Amendment” rather than an endorsement of the “individual right” interpretation, said this:

“I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, is derived from . . . the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even ‘winning,’ interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation.”

In the immediate aftermath of the tragedies in Newtown, Connecticut, and Webster, New York, there has been a renewed push from Senator Diane Feinstein for a federal ban on the future manufacture and importation of firearms such as the AR-15 and the high-capacity 20- and 30-round magazines with which they are typically supplied.  Indeed, President Obama specifically included such a plan in the package of “gun safety” proposals he announced to the Nation on December 14, 2012. [3]

Typical of the rationale offered for such action by Congress, the President said, “If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited . . . Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that – then surely we have an obligation to try.” [4]  The clear implication of this argument is that the need to supposedly protect the public trumps the Second Amendment and that semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15, are no more deserving of special protection than are any others.  Leaving aside for the moment the incorrect presumption that restricting a certain class of firearms will do anything to protect anyone, this brief analysis will focus on why semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 deserve – and already possess – protected status under the Constitution.  

The Special Constitutionally Protected Status of Semi-Automatic Firearms

It is my contention that the President’s argument, while perhaps emotionally appealing, is fraught with legal problems, and that semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 do enjoy special protection under our Constitution.  Again, Professor Levinson’s observation that there exist “plausible, perhaps even ‘winning,’ interpretations of the Second Amendment [that] would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation” was prescient, perhaps in a way that he did not foresee.

In the only Supreme Court decision to touch upon the status of “military-style” firearms in civilian hands, United States v. Miller [5], the Court ruled unanimously that appellant Miller’s possession and interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun was not Constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment.  In the words of Justice McReynolds, writing a unanimous opinion that reversed and remanded the District Court’s decision that Miller’s sawed-off shotgun was Constitutionally protected:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Thus, by extension, despite the fact that none of the semi-automatic firearms which Senator Feinstein and the White House would like to regulate and/or tax out of existence are capable of full-automatic fire (which is what separates them from the military weapons they superficially resemble), the AR-15 and its cousins are Constitutionally protected precisely because they do have such a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated (meaning, in the language of the 18th century, “well-trained” and “well-armed”) [6] militia.

Who Then, Is Legally Guaranteed the Right to Possess Semi-Automatic Firearms?

Following the line of reasoning upon which the Court based its decision in Miller, which suggests that ownership of firearms such as the AR-15 is required of but not restricted to members of the militia, one must turn to the questions of (1.) precisely what is the militia referred to and (2.) who comprises it.  Here, too, those who would move to legislatively prohibit the future manufacture of semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 and the high-capacity magazines associated with them have, from a Constitutional perspective, a very tough row to hoe.

Section 311 of title 32 of the United States Code [7] provides that “the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”  Section 313 [8] defines the militia as having two classes: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and, (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.  In sum then, the unorganized militia is all male citizens of the United States, aged 17 to 45, and male resident aliens aged 17 to 45 who have made a declaration to become citizens and are not members of the National Guard.  Given Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s recent directive that women are no longer to be barred from direct combat roles in the Armed Forces, not to mention the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would seem that the exclusion of women aged 17 to 45 from the definition of who comprises the unorganized militia is open to challenge, the language of 32 USC § 313 notwithstanding.


Conclusion

This analysis has demonstrated that: (1.) unlike other firearms – such as the long-barreled side-by-side shotguns used by duck hunters, or, the poorly-made, inaccurate, small-caliber handguns that are disproportionately used in crimes of violence – semi-automatic firearms with magazines having a capacity of greater than 10 rounds and chambered in .223, .308, .30-06 (as well as a few other calibers) possess Constitutionally-protected status precisely because of their “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia;” and, (2.) that while, due to the present exclusion of women who are not members of the Armed Forces or National Guard, the jurisprudence pertaining to whom comprises the unorganized militia may be incomplete, it is a matter of black-letter law that all male citizens and male resident aliens who have made a declaration to become citizens of the United States and are not members of the National Guard, are in fact members of said militia, and as such are not only permitted, but indeed are required to possess and to become proficient in the use of such firearms.

While these facts may be inconvenient for those who would deprive American citizens of their natural and Constitutionally protected right to possess military-capable semi-automatic firearms, [9] they are indeed, the facts.  Rather than attempting to accomplish their objective of disarming American civilians by waving the bloody shirt, let Senator Feinstein and President Obama, if they possess the moral courage to do so, address these matters head-on via a direct attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.

Notes

1. District of Columbia v. Heller. 554 US 570 (2008).
2. 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989-1990). Embarrassing Second Amendment, The; Levinson, Sanford.
5. U.S. v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939).
6. Uviller, H.R. and Merkel, W.G. The Militia and the Right to Arms, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, p. 361.  Duke University Press: Durham, NC. 2003. See also: The Federalist, No. 29.
7. 32 USC 311.
8. 32 USC 313.
9. Senator Unveils Bill to Limit Semiautomatic Arms.  The New York Times, January 24, 2013. www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/us/… “The goal of the bill, [Senator Feinstein] said, is “to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

Reply
:iconryu238:
ryu238 Featured By Owner Jun 14, 2014
I don't mind people owning firearms...banning them is just a bad idea, still I wouldn't mind universal background checks...
Reply
:iconreasonablebeliever:
ReasonableBeliever Featured By Owner May 3, 2014
Amen
Reply
:iconmoxc:
MOxC Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2014  Student Artisan Crafter
Real men use muskets. 
Reply
:iconskyounkinzero:
skyounkinzero Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist
Couldn't agree more LadyRhianWriter.

The only thing more guns increase- is more gun violence. NOT safety and security.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner May 4, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Actually, the evidence suggests you're wrong. Perhaps you didn't read the Policy Statement in my Journal. This is not an invitation to further debate. Read the policy statement an consider yourself warned.
Reply
:iconkikyoustorm:
KikyouStorm Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013
Can i share this with my class?
I think this poster of yours speaks volumes.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Yes, of course. You may also wish to share the thinking behind that poster, as follows:


The Inconvenient Second Amendment: Why Semi-Automatic Firearms and High-Capacity Magazines Are Constitutionally Protected

by Poasterchild

Introduction

In 1989, nearly 20 years before the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller [1] affirming that the Constitution does indeed embrace an individual right to keep and bear arms, the distinguished liberal Constitutional scholar Sanford Levinson published a prescient article in the Yale Law Journal titled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.” [2]

In speculating as to why the Second Amendment has historically received such scant attention from Constitutional scholars (compared, for example, to the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments), Professor Levinson, whose article was actually a plea for reasoned discussion among legal scholars on the meaning and implications of the so-called “forgotten Amendment” rather than an endorsement of the “individual right” interpretation, said this:

“I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy, is derived from . . . the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even ‘winning,’ interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation.”

In the immediate aftermath of the tragedies in Newtown, Connecticut, and Webster, New York, there has been a renewed push from Senator Diane Feinstein for a federal ban on the future manufacture and importation of firearms such as the AR-15 and the high-capacity 20- and 30-round magazines with which they are typically supplied. Indeed, President Obama specifically included such a plan in the package of “gun safety” proposals he announced to the Nation on December 14, 2012. [3]

Typical of the rationale offered for such action by Congress, the President said, “If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited . . . Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that – then surely we have an obligation to try.” [4] The clear implication of this argument is that the need to supposedly protect the public trumps the Second Amendment and that semi-automatic firearms, such as the AR-15, are no more deserving of special protection than are any others. Leaving aside for the moment the incorrect presumption that restricting a certain class of firearms will do anything to protect anyone, this brief analysis will focus on why semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 deserve – and already possess – protected status under the Constitution.

The Special Constitutionally Protected Status of Semi-Automatic Firearms

It is my contention that the President’s argument, while perhaps emotionally appealing, is fraught with legal problems, and that semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 do enjoy special protection under our Constitution. Again, Professor Levinson’s observation that there exist “plausible, perhaps even ‘winning,’ interpretations of the Second Amendment [that] would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation” was prescient, perhaps in a way that he did not foresee.

In the only Supreme Court decision to touch upon the status of “military-style” firearms in civilian hands, United States v. Miller [5], the Court ruled unanimously that appellant Miller’s possession and interstate transportation of a sawed-off shotgun was not Constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment. In the words of Justice McReynolds, writing a unanimous opinion that reversed and remanded the District Court’s decision that Miller’s sawed-off shotgun was Constitutionally protected:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Thus, by extension, despite the fact that none of the semi-automatic firearms which Senator Feinstein and the White House would like to regulate and/or tax out of existence are capable of full-automatic fire (which is what separates them from the military weapons they superficially resemble), the AR-15 and its cousins are Constitutionally protected precisely because they do have such a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated (meaning, in the language of the 18th century, “well-trained” and “well-armed”) [6] militia.

Who Then, Is Legally Guaranteed the Right to Possess Semi-Automatic Firearms?

Following the line of reasoning upon which the Court based its decision in Miller, which suggests that ownership of firearms such as the AR-15 is required of but not restricted to members of the militia, one must turn to the questions of (1.) precisely what is the militia referred to and (2.) who comprises it. Here, too, those who would move to legislatively prohibit the future manufacture of semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15 and the high-capacity magazines associated with them have, from a Constitutional perspective, a very tough row to hoe.

Section 311 of title 32 of the United States Code [7] provides that “the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.” Section 313 [8] defines the militia as having two classes: (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and, (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. In sum then, the unorganized militia is all male citizens of the United States, aged 17 to 45, and male resident aliens aged 17 to 45 who have made a declaration to become citizens and are not members of the National Guard. Given Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s recent directive that women are no longer to be barred from direct combat roles in the Armed Forces, not to mention the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would seem that the exclusion of women aged 17 to 45 from the definition of who comprises the unorganized militia is open to challenge, the language of 32 USC § 313 notwithstanding.

Conclusion

This analysis has demonstrated that: (1.) unlike other firearms – such as the long-barreled side-by-side shotguns used by duck hunters, or, the poorly-made, inaccurate, small-caliber handguns that are disproportionately used in crimes of violence – semi-automatic firearms with magazines having a capacity of greater than 10 rounds and chambered in .223, .308, .30-06 (as well as a few other calibers) possess Constitutionally-protected status precisely because of their “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia;” and, (2.) that while, due to the present exclusion of women who are not members of the Armed Forces or National Guard, the jurisprudence pertaining to whom comprises the unorganized militia may be incomplete, it is a matter of black-letter law that all male citizens and male resident aliens who have made a declaration to become citizens of the United States and are not members of the National Guard, are in fact members of said militia, and as such are not only permitted, but indeed are required to possess and to become proficient in the use of such firearms.

While these facts may be inconvenient for those who would deprive American citizens of their natural and Constitutionally protected right to possess military-capable semi-automatic firearms, [9] they are indeed, the facts. Rather than attempting to accomplish their objective of disarming American civilians by waving the bloody shirt, let Senator Feinstein and President Obama, if they possess the moral courage to do so, address these matters head-on via a direct attempt to repeal the Second Amendment.

Notes

1. District of Columbia v. Heller. 554 US 570 (2008).
2. 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989-1990). Embarrassing Second Amendment, The; Levinson, Sanford.
3. [link]
4. [link]
5. U.S. v. Miller, 307 US 174 (1939).
6. Uviller, H.R. and Merkel, W.G. The Militia and the Right to Arms, or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, p. 361. Duke University Press: Durham, NC. 2003. See also: The Federalist, No. 29.
7. 32 USC 311.
8. 32 USC 313.
9. Senator Unveils Bill to Limit Semiautomatic Arms. The New York Times, January 24, 2013. [link] “The goal of the bill, [Senator Feinstein] said, is “to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”
Reply
:iconkikyoustorm:
KikyouStorm Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013
Thanks.
You're very informative.

I'll print out your writing.
And there will be a dozen copies of your writing.
So each student can read it as I read it aloud to them. While the poster is projected onto the wall.

Although some of the words might have to be reworked into simpler words...
I hope you don't mind? It's just that some of the words, the children may not understand.
This will hopefully be shown to older middle school students and college students.
I find it very important that everyone needs to have a firm grasp of what is going on in
current society as it effects us all in some way or another.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
By all means. Please do. Which state are you in?
Reply
:iconkikyoustorm:
KikyouStorm Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013
I rather not answer that publicly.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
ok
Reply
:iconbeta368:
BETA368 Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013
"Who needs a 30-round magazine for hunting?"
I know the second amendment doesn't cover hunting, but this is more pest control than hunting.
Killing wild pigs, that's why people probably go for "high-caps". If I'm correct, the fuckers breed like rats and ruin crops, so you HAVE to use what lefties would deem an "Assault Weapon" to do anything effective.
I wonder if there's good money in Hog control I'd probably like a job like that.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
The .223 caliber (5.56 mm) round for which the AR-15 and similar rifles are designed is NOT sufficient to handle wild pigs and in any state I can think of it would be both illegal and stupid to use it against these animals.

I've seen them absorb two or three hits from a .44 Magnum and keep on comin'.

I'll be posting some more on this subject in the next few days in the form of another poaster, but the reason for these rifles and 30-round magazines is briefly as follows:

In the only Supreme Court decision to touch upon the issue of "military-style" firearms, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Court ruled unanimously that Miller's possession of a sawed-off shotgun was NOT Constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Thus, by extension, despite the fact that none of the semi-automatic firearms which Senator Feinstein and the White House would like to regulate and/or tax out of existence are capable of full-automatic fire (which is what separates them from the military weapons they superficially resemble), the AR-15 and its cousins are Constitutionally protected precisely because they do have such a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated (meaning, in the language of the 18th century, "well-trained" and "well-armed") militia. In short, they deserve the most Constitutional protection precisely because they are useful in military situations.
Reply
:iconbeta368:
BETA368 Featured By Owner Jan 24, 2013
Okay.
Reply
:icondocusfin:
docusfin Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2013
Good poster.
Reply
:iconsoliterdan:
SoliterDan Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2013
Guys, I have a great idea!
Could you just, upgrade the non-lethal thing into guns?

In Ukraine we have a strict law about guns, but *coll sunglasses* we can craft stuff. I personally know a man, who can make a real-9mm shooting pistol from a traumatic one, or make a home-made bazooka shooting fireworks.

I'll skip the obvious sharp wooden/dural swords and grenades, that my sister makes when she's bored
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Reply
:iconcaleb-case:
caleb-case Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2013  Professional General Artist
:thumbsup:
Reply
:iconmezkitsu:
MezKitsu Featured By Owner Jan 2, 2013  Student General Artist
I agree with the right to keep and bear arms, it is something we have in my country also. But I disagree as to why when you say "Government should fear the people". I think this is bad. Nobody should fear, the people should be loyal, the government trustworthy. If there is fear then government can never operate correctly. This is why I am against things like democracy. My monarch said that "Only a tyrant would not trust his own people with arms" and that is why I believe we should carry arms. Because government should trust their people, not fear them.
Reply
:iconcapt-blackadder:
Capt-Blackadder Featured By Owner Dec 28, 2012
That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." George Orwell :clap:

I love this! In spite of my political leanings on pretty much every other issue, I have always supported the 2nd Amendment. We need to be able to act in our defense against tyranny or else we may see things like the Tulsa Race Riots and the Bonus Marches yet again.
Reply
:iconmezkitsu:
MezKitsu Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013  Student General Artist
e.e The rifle on the wall is a symbol of monarchy not democracy! My people (as Native Americans) took up arms to defend our monarch when the Spanish invaded, and we've kept that right ever since. I guess it's a cultural perspective.
Reply
:iconcapt-blackadder:
Capt-Blackadder Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013
When your people took up arms against the Spanish, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Spanish were not popular with your people. Weapons in the hands of the people aid in the cause of the people. If private ownership of arms aided the monarch, then why did the British try to take them away from the colonists? I can assure you that the idea of taking away the people's rifles and ability to obtain them is certainly not democracy, which is what the current regime in control of America is trying their hardest to do (along with other violations of our civil liberties). A better statement from me might have been that the rifle on the wall is a tool; depending on the man wielding it, it can be a defender of democracy or an aid in the oppression of others. Since I wanted to quote George Orwell (wonder what he would say about his homeland today), I used his statement.
Reply
:iconmezkitsu:
MezKitsu Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013  Student General Artist
I can assure you that taking away guns IS a democracy. If the majority wish to ban guns, then it is democratic to remove them. That's what happened in the UK and Australia and many other nations. They lost their rights because the majority said so. I do not believe the UK was a monarchy, they were more of an aristocracy. A true monarchy does not oppress their subjects, that is what an aristocrat or a dictator does. I use the rifle in defending my monarchy. So yes, it is a tool. But a democracy? No. The majority rules in a democracy, and if they want to remove rights they can. -Shivers- That's why I'm glad I don't live in a democracy.
Reply
:iconcapt-blackadder:
Capt-Blackadder Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013
A majority believed that women should not be allowed to vote, is that democracy? A majority believed that Black people should be kept from having equality, is that democracy? What you describe is tyranny of the majority and if that is what you think democracy should be then yes you are right. The rights of the individual must be protected if anyone is to have true freedom and yet still have some say in how their government is run.
Reply
:iconmezkitsu:
MezKitsu Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013  Student General Artist
-Sighs and shakes head- Listen, the very definition of democracy is rule by the majority. That is all it means. You can start adding on rights but that doesn't make them "democratic rights". In fact, you're using a form of absolutism by saying something is guaranteed and can't be revoked. I know your media likes to use the word democracy like it equates instantly with "goodness" and "freedom" but really that's not true. I can smoke marijuana, or buy a fully automatic rifle, these are freedoms I have that you don't. Does that make monarchy more free than democracy? Your rights can be taken away by a majority. Each system has beliefs and rights. Democracy is just a system where the majority rule, that's it. Nothing else, nothing more.
Reply
:iconcapt-blackadder:
Capt-Blackadder Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013
Representative Democracy (or Federal Republic with Democratic Tradition) is what I have meant, so fair enough. Both George Orwell and myself were incorrect to use the term democracy when we truly meant republic.
Reply
:iconmezkitsu:
MezKitsu Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2013  Student General Artist
Well, a representative democracy is just a democracy where the majority choose a leader rather than choosing the laws themselves. Most democracies are this (in fact, isn't Switzerland the only non-representative democracy?). I still disagree with them because I believe things should be chosen based upon empirical evidence and morals, not based upon who the majority wanted.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
Thanks for this.
Reply
:iconcapt-blackadder:
Capt-Blackadder Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2012
Thank you for your talent, and for supporting our freedoms! :handshake:
Reply
:iconfadetoblack04:
fadetoblack04 Featured By Owner Dec 27, 2012
I don't support gun control. I'd rather see something that regulates WHO can own a gun rather than who can own WHAT gun. By that I mean there could be some sort of method to determine if they're worth letting them own it and there should also be a sort of mandatory "gun safety" (maybe annually?) as a possible way to check up on owners.

Currently, this is how gun laws (seem to) work: Someone threatens you with a sort of weapon or possibly a style of invasion, perhaps a burglary, you obviously feel threatened and violated, so you shoot and maybe you kill him, maybe not. You go to jail for defending yourself. This isn't as big as national security like the Militia idea, but I believe it to be similar enough.
Reply
:iconmurielleejones:
MurielLeeJones Featured By Owner Dec 26, 2012
what? my right to hunt ducks is not constitutionally guaranteed???

I hate to agree with you, but I'd hate myself more if I didn't agree with you.
Reply
:icongold-drache:
Gold-Drache Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
k, I'm gonna get flamed for this, but who cares. Also just saying, I fucking love guns. I want a semi-automatic pistol one day.

...but come on, who needs a fucking AR-15 to hunt for deer? Really? We have no business owning weapons intended to kill other human beings.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
:iconyunobig1plz: You didn't read anything I posted, did you? Thanks so much for your ignorant, potty-mouthed opinion.
Reply
:icongold-drache:
Gold-Drache Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2012
tbh I'm not in the mood to create a wall of text; your opinion won't be swayed either way. I read it all, and what I said originally still stands. We have no business owning guns intended to kill other human beings (That's saying an AR-15 or any other assault rifle isn't meant for deer hunting or skeet shooting). Other weapons for sport should be legal and regulated like it is now.
Reply
:iconmezkitsu:
MezKitsu Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013  Student General Artist
o.o You clearly didn't read it. His entire post was how the American second amendment was about the right to bear arms to defend yourself against humans; not that it was to hunt. So your argument of "You don't need a rifle to hunt with" is a strawman argument, because he already said he doesn't believe it is to hunt it.
Reply
:iconstalkerofchernobyl:
StalkerofChernobyl Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
So why do you want a semiauto pistol? After all, we have "no business owning guns intended to kill other people"

Oh, other weapons used for sport should be legal? You don't think the AR-15 can be used for sport?
Reply
:iconladyrhianwriter:
LadyRhianwriter Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
Since Abellius has blocked me for responding to him, I guess I will have to post this unthreaded.

You want me to address the claims to him when you were saying I had to show proof that someone had been shot at a gun show. If you want to intervene with a request on behalf of someone else, don't then say I should only address it to them- you're the one who made the request. I assume, from the rest of your rant, that this means you have no idea how to mitigate or prevent gun violence, since you are trying to distract attention from what you can't do. I asked for your opinion, and I never claimed that there was scientific studies stating this. That's a nice strawman you've constructed. But it has nothing to do with what I actually said. You made three claims as to how guns stopped someone from doing more gun violence, but almost all of your examples were wrong in some respects, if not many of them. I'm not being venemous, I am simply pointing out that the three examples you cited don't make the point you were trying to make. Your own attempt to prove your point proved nothing.

Really. Were two people shot at an Illinois gun show? Yes, they were. The paper said it was an (quotes around the word from the article) an "accident". A different article about the shooting at the gun show: [link]. A dealer shot himself in the hand at a different gun show: [link] Here's another one from Tupelo, MS, where a kid pulled the trigger on a gun that was loaded and hurt another child and an adult: [link] A kid in 2008 was killed shooting himself at a gun show. [link] An off-duty employee of a Sherriff's office shot himself accidentally at a gun show: [link] Another man shot at the Tanner Gun show: [link] Is that enough shootings at Gun shows for you?

I'd love to respond to your links, but they don't appear to be working. They say [link], but when you click on them, nothing happens. And yes, if you cited those stories and didn't look up the details, then you are parroting them. And you have no scientific studies or peer reviews, either, just *your* opinion. Does my opinion trump yours? No, but neither does yours trump mine.

Third, calm down, you are getting awfully hot under the collar for me disagreeing with you. And starting with name-calling already? I support the use of guns in hunting. But it's a truth that many gun owners do not properly look after or lock down their guns around children or family members. There are people who are better off not owning guns at all. My ideas for lessening gun violence are: 1) Banning Assault Rifles and large clips/magazines. A handgun can kill just as many people as an assault rifle. But the assault rifle makes it easier to kill large numbers of people, and large capacity clips make it easier still. 2) Mental health help for people without stigma. In this country, if you go in to talk to a psychiatrist, a lot of people will see you as crazy. But everyone needs help sometimes, and the stigma makes it much less likely that someone is going to want to see a mental health professional. 3) End bullying in schools. While this won't eliminate kids wanting to kill their classmates, if their classmates aren't making their lives utter hell, it will at least cut down on the anger and rage they feel. Also, see 2). 4) All guns should be registered and their owner should be tracked. If the owner decides to sell the gun to Joe Balonski, there should be some sort of tracking of this. Perhaps also monitor how many rounds people are buying so that people about to go on a rampage would give some sign that they are stockpiling ammo for something. 5) Gun ownership should be licensed, with an option to renew every year or two years. To be licensed, they would have to undergo a gun safety course, show that they have a gun safe or locked gun cabinet in their home to store their guns (and keep them out of the reach of curious children or people who can break in and steal the gun/s). Also, a psychiatric evaluation, to be repeated every time the license is renewed. I don't have any illusions that this would completely eliminate gun violence, but I think it would cut it down a great deal.

Oh, and if someone in your household who didn't have a license got hold of one or more of your guns and shot themselves (like Ryder Rozier, who shot himself accidentally the weekend after the Sandy Hook massacre with his Policeman uncle's gun), you should lose your license and your guns (bar some extremely extenuating circumstance). Gun owners should be responsible.

Now, if you're finished calling me names... Perhaps you can respond. I'd really love to see those links.
Reply
:iconmezkitsu:
MezKitsu Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013  Student General Artist
I'm going to give a non-American perspective on this, so I'll address your points as such.

1. Your first suggestion was somewhat of a fallacy. Firstly because you're using the word "large capacity" when in fact they are "regular capacity". 30 rounds in a rifle is the standard, it is not large capacity. Large capacity would be more than the standard, such as 50 to 100 rounds. But secondly because assault rifles (fully automatic rifles) are already banned in the USA. I presume you mean to say semi-automatic rifles. In which case you have a problem, since the vast majority of rifles sold are semi-automatic. You're also using emotional phrases such as "makes it easier to kill", I can use that phrase to people who own large and heavy trucks, they make it easier to kill large amounts of people than a small car would. But we should use less suggestive phrases as to avoid the fallacy of appeal to emotion.

2. Agreed. But the US healthcare system needs a lot of improvements in several places before that can happen.

3. Agreed. But again, the US education system is terrible. Many of the solutions we use to prevent bullying (deontological moral education, promotion of nobility, support of honor) would not work in a utilitarian country like yours.

4. That suggestion seems to imply guilt rather than innocence. We should all be innocent until proven guilty, by forcing people to be tracked you are proposing a system of guilt that is not deserved by good people. This would also not prevent the most common ways criminals obtain guns, such as by theft or the black market.

5. The licensing of gun ownership would violate gun ownership as a right. A right is not something that is licensed. It would degrade gun ownership and make it taboo. It would also keep the poor from owning a gun, those who cannot afford the cabinets or the evaluations (as I know you have to pay for your healthcare) or the licenses themselves. And the poor are the most vulnerable.

Instead, I suggest you do what we do. Make marksmanship and gun safety part of your national curriculum. Educate all children in the safe handling of firearms from a young age. We have never had a mass shooting, nor any gun crime, despite the fact that I can legally own weapons even Americans cannot (a fully automatic rifle, for example). I believe the top reason for our low gun crime is because of our education system.
Reply
:iconpoasterchild:
poasterchild Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
I've already blocked him from my gallery. While I disagree with some of the policies you propose, I simply won't have this gallery end up reading like the /b/ board on 4chan. We'll take up the policy issues at another time. If it appears that somehow Abellius has not been banned, please let me know.
Reply
:iconladyrhianwriter:
LadyRhianwriter Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
Understood. No, he was calling me names and claiming all sorts of strawmen things I never said. But apparently, he got so hot under the collar, he couldn't continue and blocked me from ever responding to him. I don't think calling someone names is any sort of valid argument. As long as it is polite, I'll continue to disagree and argue my points. Sorry for crapping up this thread. I would have suggested taking it private very soon.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Dec 24, 2012
The day common sense kicks in is the day most of these gun lovers get shot. You know what's so funny? we have the highest gun rates in the world and the solution to all this is more guns. Well, geez, I guess there need to be more shootings to get people to stop dragging their feet and do something.
Reply
:iconmezkitsu:
MezKitsu Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013  Student General Artist
-Shakes head- You don't have the highest gun ownership in the world. You have the highest amount of guns in TOTAL, but from a per capita statistic you do not. Many countries have one gun in every household, compared to the USA which may have more guns but in fewer homes.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2013
Okay, sheesh.
Reply
:iconstalkerofchernobyl:
StalkerofChernobyl Featured By Owner Jan 9, 2013
Incorrect actually. If you'll look at [link] the US violent crime rate has gone down. As well if you compare American violent crime rates with British violent crime rates (Which you can find here [link] on page 11)you will find that when comparing the ratios, British violent crime is higher than American violent crime. (England is about 1,361 violent crimes per 100,000 people, which is about 3.5 times the amount of the US.)

And remember, England has a firearms ban, which has not really helped.

From the sound of your post though, you're trying to target gun crime specifically. In which case, I'd like to direct your attention to this image [link] Gun crimes are actually a minority when compared to other murder methods.
Reply
:iconkitsumekat:
kitsumekat Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2013
It's still high.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
December 22, 2012
Image Size
821 KB
Resolution
844×1076
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
4,084 (1 today)
Favourites
132 (who?)
Comments
275
Downloads
68
×