Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
2nd Amendment by Balddog4 2nd Amendment by Balddog4
I love this Amendment. In fact I love all of the amendments. However, I love this one because it allows us to own weapons that the government have. So I can buy a tank if I want and the government can't do anything about it. Because the 2nd amendment states that I can. Now I would love to own guns, for one reason only; To protect my family. Other than that, I wouldn't use guns for any other purpose. I might go hunting, but that depends.

But I support the 2nd amendment 100% and I hate gun bans. Because if everyone is armed and allowed to carry assult weapons around where ever they go, then people wouldn't go out and shoot other people. Because then they might get shot themselves. That's why gin bans DO NOT WORK! Because all they do is allow lawless people to do whatever they want. So that is why we can not allow gun bans.
Add a Comment:
 
:icontheartfrog:
TheArtFrog Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Student General Artist
Giving aggressive ignorant emotionally fuelled idiots (i.e. most humans) easy access to guns is still a bad idea.
95% of humanity really shouldn't be trusted with guns in my opinion.

It is far easier for criminals to get access to guns in America, yet in places and countries with gun bans, there are far far fewer shootings. Lawless people will have a tougher time having access to guns if there are gun bans, and are more likely to get caught and arrested before they can even commit a crime as they'll be seeking to obtain firearms.

Gun crimes usually happen in places where others don't have immediate access to guns, like for example, school shootings, or individual targets in private or secluded places. And even police can't be trusted with guns, especially if they're corrupt or racist (or both).

But I guess each to their own. I can see why you would support something that enables you to protect yourself and your family too. It's a risky amendment, as it means you can both be able to protect yourself and your family, but also to live in a more dangerous climate of fear too where if someone is too drunk, angry, delusional, desperate etc, you could get shot. 
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I do not hold people, yourself included, in such low regards.

You misunderstand the 2nd Amendment, it's primary purpose is to allow the American people to defend themselves against the Government, secondary purpose is to allow for hunting and self-defense.

Having a gun ban does not directly relate to the crime rate, just because law abiding citizens can't get guns doesn't mean crime will be less. Correlation does not mean causation.  Also gun laws didn't stop Paris or Brussels, but it did allow the terrorists to go unchallenged. Terrorists aside, criminals will still seek to do crime, in common crime if guns are not available I doubt the criminal(s) will take extraordinary steps to obtain them, they'll more likely use a knife or a blunt object or even just their fists.

I agree with you that having an unprotected target rich environment is a bad idea and inviting criminals.  However if you are insinuating the majority of police are corrupt or racist or in some other way bad people I must disagree with you, if that were the case we'd see far far more incidents of that in America.

I do not live in such fear, nor do I know anyone who does.  For the number of guns that are in America, it is an extraordinarily few that are used in crimes, and of those the majority were obtained illegally.

This seems to come down to how much we trust our fellow man, it appears you do not trust people very much, however I trust the majority of people to have and exercise good judgement the majority of the time, this includes you. =)
Reply
:icontheartfrog:
TheArtFrog Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2016  Student General Artist
I've not had much faith in humanity recently.
The difference between a knife and a gun is that you're far more likely to survive being stabbed than being shot.

My trust in people has definitely dwindled over the years... I personally wouldn't trust people to have good judgement.

I used to have housemates who were victims of police brutality, and a relative's friend was arrested for a broken shop window although she was innocent and walking by when the incident occurred, and then was basically denied her career in childcare because of a conviction she should never have gotten.
And the kinds of people hired to be police often seem to be the aggressive type. As for people in general, in my experience they often litter when there are bins nearby, most can't drive a car safely (and I'm lucky my parents can actually drive, because they've had to avoid all sorts of stupid drivers on the road who nearly got us killed, one just the other day driving fast on the wrong side of he road round a bend), make stupid life choices that they deeply regret, buying expensive things that they never use, are reckless with alcohol, get mortgages that last their whole lives and spend life in debt... And so many Americans are voting for Trump. If that offensive racist bully is allowed become president, global politics are going to tense. Hopefully he's only all talk.
I could go on to a whole list of acts of human stupidity and ignorance, but basically put, I don't trust people to make good decisions.
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I am sorry to hear about your friends, that is a terrible tragedy.

I cannot speak for the Police officers in Ireland, nor do I blame you for your lack of faith in humanity, it is easy to lose that faith in this modern age.  With instant telecommunication around the world and the news media the way it is people get to hear about all the dumb and horrible thing people around the world do, but the stories of good things people do don't circulate as much.  Smart people will do dumb things, that is just human nature, with what you have written I'm going to assume you're a smart person, I won't ask for specific examples, but have you ever done anything that you look back on and go "that was dumb"?  I know I have plenty of those instances.

I'll ease your worry about Trump a little, currently he's only getting about about 18% of the American population voting for him, on the other hand we also have Hillary Clinton who is running strong and Bernie Sanders hot on her tail.......  I think I just dropped your faith in humanity again with that.....

But then again global politics is global politics, what were talking about is local people.

I personally look for patterns, if a person does a stupid thing, then we learn and move on, if they do stupid things constantly then we have something to worry about.  I hope what I'm saying makes sense.

God bless you and your family. =)
Reply
:icontheartfrog:
TheArtFrog Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2016  Student General Artist
They weren't really my friends, I only met them briefly, but I learned a lot in that time from them. The house I lived in was crazy, with all sorts of housemates from all walks of life.

Why does everyone assume I'm smart, I'm not that smart... ^^; But I see what you mean, that we're all capable of dumb actions.

Thanks! :) Bless you too!
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 28, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I give people respect until they prove to me they are deserving of none, and I assume people to be smart (not to be confused with genius) until they prove their not. =)

Regardless of how well you knew them I'm still sorry they went through that, but I'm glad your time with them was mostly positive.
Reply
:icontheartfrog:
TheArtFrog Featured By Owner Mar 28, 2016  Student General Artist
I see. :)
Reply
:iconoddgarfield:
OddGarfield Featured By Owner Mar 19, 2016  Student Interface Designer
The Left-wing wants to take this from the people, I won't allow it.
Reply
:iconportabletnt:
PortableTNT Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Which is why the U.S. has one of the highest gun-death rates in the world.
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
60% of American “gun deaths” are suicides and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference.
Reply
:icontheartfrog:
TheArtFrog Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2016  Student General Artist
A suicidal person is far more likely to commit suicide if there's a gun in the room than if there's not.

It only takes a second to pull the trigger.


Guns have a weird effect on people in general, as their mere presence can make people want to hold them, test them out, or fire them at least once.
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 25, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
My friend, that wasn't the point of my post, my post was a response to gun violence.

I take it you don't own a gun, if you did you'd know that your last statement is completely bogus, guns do not have a special and unique effect or compulsion on people, the only desire for use comes from the standard and normal desire to use the things you have, such as your computer or barbecue.  Does driving a car compel you to run over pedestrians? Does owning a pool compel you to drown people?  Does owning a baseball bat compel you to beat someone up? (BTW you more likely to be assaulted with a blunt object, such as a baseball bat, or unarmed then with a firearm) The statistics don't agree with you.

Stating that guns compel people is intellectually dishonest.
Reply
:icontheartfrog:
TheArtFrog Featured By Owner Edited Mar 25, 2016  Student General Artist
Pools weren't designed to drown people, bats weren't designed to hit people. Guns are designed to kill animals and people. They are made for the purpose of killing. I'm not saying this desire is with everyone but a suicidal person in a room with a gun is far more likely to kill themselves than someone without a gun. An angry person is far more likely to kill someone with a gun in rage, than if they didn't have any access to a gun. 

Just saying. :) You don't have to agree with me if you don't want to though. 
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 25, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Once again my commentary is geared towards the topic of this picture, violent crime/the ability to defend ourselves.

Tragic as it is suicidal people who really want to die will find a way, suicide by gun is the most used method, but that only accounts for 50% of the suicides in the US (I'm not sure about Ireland, need to do some research), hanging and poisoning rank #2 and #3. 

A person with rage issues/uncontrollable rage will use what's at hand, if a gun is present obviously he'll try for that, but if it isn't that won't stop them from attacking.

Point is in both cases it's the person making a decision, the inanimate object isn't compelling them.

Be well, be safe, and be kind. =)
Reply
:icontheartfrog:
TheArtFrog Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2016  Student General Artist
At least with poisoning or using a knife (not sure about hanging though) you have much more of a chance to survive the suicide attempt. With a gun it's much more deadly.

Guns have a far more likely chance of killing you than a knife. www.scientificamerican.com/art… www.infoplease.com/ipa/A000488…
A bullet with usually leave an exit wound and will cause lots of damage, while a knife is cleaner and does less damage. Poison can be treated if the person is taken to A and E quick enough, and there is the chance they'll throw it up before it can do damage.

It would make it harder to kill others if guns weren't as accessible, that much is true.

But you're right, it's the person making the decision.
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Actually knife wounds are more deadly then gun shot wounds if the victim doesn't die immediately, as you stated knife wounds are cleaner allowing for blood loss to occur much more rapidly, gun shot wounds don't always leave and exit wound and are a much more jagged wound thus blood loss is slower (I have had multiple friends in the medical profession, I am also a military trained combat lifesaver).  That article and table just state the weapon of choice, which is not a direct correlation to which weapon is more deadly.

I'm not familiar with A and E, I think you are refering to what Americans call the ER (Emergency Room), please correct me if I am wrong.

Humanity has had little trouble killing each other before guns were invented.  Before gun, people used swords, before swords people used rocks, and to this day people use their bare fists.  A gun is just a tool, you need to look at the person using the tool.

This is interesting doing some comparisons between America and Ireland. =)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconportabletnt:
PortableTNT Featured By Owner Mar 11, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yup
Reply
:icon001ef:
001ef Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2016  Professional General Artist
for those who are wanting firearms to be banned ((which will NOT happen, because it is EVERYONE'S right to defend themselves...)) i want you to propose a plan on how we can defend ourselves against a criminal who illegally bought a gun.
Reply
:iconmandocommander:
The 2nd Amendment grants the right to operate in a well armed and well regulated militia. We don't have those anymore. We have an extremely armed and unregulated populace that leaves over 30,000 people dead in this country every year. Point of fact every country with a gun ban has the lowest overall crime and homicide rates in the world. Countries without solid gun control the the U.S. see the worst for both statistics. With so much proof refuting the notion that guns keep peace, and the fact that the amendment doesn't even grant the rights you claim it does, I call major BS with this pro-gun stance, as usual with right-wing extremism aka Fascism.
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Point of fact, back at the founding of America the "Militia" was every able bodied male regardless of weather you wanted to or not, all militia members were required to keep and maintain their weapon at their homes.  Also the "Well regulated" statement is more akin to "well trained" in modern language, how we talk and the meaning of words has shifted since the founding.  Lastly, what was this amendment even for?  It was primarily to ensure the general populace had the means to resist and fight the government, they had just fought a long and bloody war to free themselves from an oppressive government, they wanted to ensure that the government did not become oppressive, but if it did the people had the means to fight the government.

Question on your source for violent crime statistics; are they just number of people harmed or is it as a percentage in comparison the the population? Reason for the question is that countries with higher populations will naturally be inclined to have higher numbers of violent crimes committed, in fact higher numbers of everything, but as a percentage of the population it may be low. The statistics I'm looking at is by percentage of population, and America is on the lower end, not close to the least, but lower (2-5 homicides per 100,000), The top 100 countries for homicide do not include the U.S, the top ten countries all have near or total firearm bans. The high end includes places like most of South America and Southern Africa (20+ homicides per 100,000).

The bit about countries with gun bans having the least crime is false, many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries. Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, more so than the United States or even South Africa. They also have the second highest overall crime rate in the European Union. In 2008, Britain had a violent crime rate nearly five times higher than the United States (2034 vs. 446 per 100,000 population). In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. In Japan, the total murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be eliminated, the U.S. would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese.  To go along with that 60% of American “gun deaths” are suicides and the U.S. has a suicide rate 11% higher than international averages. This accounts for most of the difference in gun related crime.


"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."
 - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
Reply
:iconmandocommander:
MandoCommander Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2016
In truth, the Second Amendment was never created for the purpose of arming citizens against the government. The wording there is clear as day, it's not open to interpretation as extremist groups such as the NRA claim it is. It was created strictly for a government-operated militia to defend the new nation from internal rebellion and foreign invasion. To insist the Founding Fathers willingly fostered sentiment and legal permission for an armed rebellion against their own democracy is nothing short of absurd. I am being generous and assuming this is a case of your knowledge in historical fact to be lacking, rather than you voluntarily denying the truth.

I question where you are getting your stats. Mine are from the FBI, the ICD, and the UN, and are individual casualties of gun crime itself. Hard numbers paint a more clear and less obscure picture than ratios. None of the countries with the highest percentage in violent crime and homicides have gun bans, so I must call your information fictitious as a result. The claims countries with gun restrictions or bans alike share in high crime and homicide rates are false. Your claims that England and Australia have some of the highest percentages of robbery, sexual assaults, and assault with force are also false.

Let's put the actual numbers into perspective. Total number of deaths from gun crime alone in the US annually remains increasing at roughly 30,000 to date. Around 192,000 are wounded in gun violence annually. In Great Britain, the annual homicide rate from all forms of criminal violence has not gone over 50, yes 50, total ever since their gun ban. 98-99 total wounded from all forms of criminal violence annually.

On the contrary, Great Britain in general is on the exact opposite list, having a solid place in the top 10 countries with the least crime in general, including homicide. Crime and homicide rates have also steadily dropped in Australia since they banned assault weapons, so your claim the opposite occurred is again, false. I will point out countries with little to no gun control are all on the top 10 of violent crime and homicide, including the US and Switzerland, the latter of which is the "rape and murder capital of Europe". Ever since owning guns became a legal requirement in Switzerland, the sharp increase in violent crime and bodies piling up is well-documented. Current estimates show roughly 1/3 people in Switzerland will be a victim of violent crime at some point in their life, if not more than once assuming they survive the first time.

In the end, I'm not interested in holding a "discussion" with a revisionist who appears to be putting forth a biased far-right extremist political agenda as opposed to absolute and established facts. You can stick to your rhetoric, I'll stick to my research. Good Day.
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
My information and facts comes from the founding fathers documents, the respective countries governments, and the UN, so much for rhetoric.

I have tried, I can do no more, it is obvious we will never agree, and I for one refuse to name call.

I wish you all the best in life my friend, be safe and my God bless you.
Reply
:iconhettman:
Hettman Featured By Owner Sep 17, 2015
This outdated amendment only makes sense if your talking about the American Revolutionary War of Independence, or the current modern Ukrainian-Russian War where this would have helped those Ukrainian people/partisans properly defend themselves from a douchebag invading aggressors!

Or... From a local government that has grown too large and powerful and has been thoroughly corrupted to the point of no return that might becomes right!


Other than that it's outdated idea that was made with only the 18th century understandings of weapons and political perspectives, but that serves no real tangible purpose in modern times due to advances in technology and logistics Buuut.....to enrich weapons and defence companies!

And one important fact, when one glorifies weapons or their use! Things get ugly real fast!
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The 2nd Amendment was primarily to ensure the general populace had the means to resist and fight the government, the Founders and the colonies had just fought a long and bloody war to free themselves from an oppressive government, they wanted to ensure that their new government did not become oppressive, but if it did the people had the means to fight the government.
Reply
:iconmandocommander:
MandoCommander Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2015
Well spoken. You are correct.
Reply
:iconsubjectbubblegum:
SubjectBubblegum Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2015
The gun lobby loves this amendment just as much as you do.
Reply
:iconweegeetnik:
Weegeetnik Featured By Owner Mar 24, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Guns have changed since 1792, what about mentalities ?
Reply
:iconsofdmc:
SoFDMC Featured By Owner Feb 22, 2015  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well said. I had this image bouncing around in my head for a while until I decided to sketch it out:

2nd Amendment by SoFDMC

Mark Passio: The True Meaning and Purpose of the 2nd Amendment: www.youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8F…
Reply
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Nov 25, 2014
ok please explain the well regulated militia part
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Back at the founding of America the "Militia" was every able bodied male regardless of weather you wanted to or not, all militia members were required to keep and maintain their weapon at their homes.  Also the "Well regulated" statement is more akin to "well trained" in modern language, how we talk and the meaning of words has shifted since the founding.

It's a quick explanation, but I hope that helps.
Reply
:iconsoulessone12:
soulessone12 Featured By Owner Mar 13, 2016
thanks
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
glad to be of help. =)
Reply
:iconmonstine:
monstine Featured By Owner Edited Oct 4, 2014
Even in college this is being put down let me tell you. Suffice to say that led me to have a disagreement with my religious studies teacher.
Reply
:iconartizdak:
Artizdak Featured By Owner Sep 9, 2014
I love this amendment so much! As for gun bans, I am a yes and no on the subject. This amendment must be protected!
Reply
:iconpaphilly:
PAPhilly Featured By Owner Jun 25, 2014
I am all for the Second Amendment wholeheartedly, don’t get me wrong, but a lot of people seem to forget the first clause guarantees that the states’ have a right to a militia independent of the federal government. Basically what I’m getting at is that the John Warner Defense Act of 2007 is a terrible thing and should be repealed immediately as unconstitutional.

Also, gun control doesn’t work; history has shown this multiple times. And when it DOES work, it’s always used to oppress the people, not stop crime.
Reply
:iconfujin777:
Fujin777 Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I support the 2nd amendment because gun-control groups fail to see one clear fact; bad people will always get guns regardless of what happens. What needs to be fixed is the mental health system so there's less likely chances of mass shootings, but I could be wrong and that's what I think.
Reply
:iconsteamrailwaycompany:
SteamRailwayCompany Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Ronald Reagan once said "You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time."
Reply
:iconfujin777:
Fujin777 Featured By Owner May 2, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Indeed!
Reply
:iconnurseboobies:
NurseBoobies Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2013
When government takes citizen's rights to bear arms, it becomes citizen's duty to take government's right to govern - George Washington
Reply
:iconthedesertkitsune:
thedesertkitsune Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"...And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them...."
- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
Reply
:iconaceking90:
aceking90 Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2013
So you think I should own tank? Well how about a nuclear bomb or an air craft carrier?
Reply
:iconbalddog4:
Balddog4 Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2013
The second Amendment allows us to be armed. If the government can use a tank, the citizen should be able to buy a tank. But of course buying a tank cost a lot of money. So as long you can save enough money you can buy military weapons.
Reply
:iconarkangelx120:
ArkAngelX120 Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, John Wayne bought a battleship.

Of course, you need to have that kind of dough.
Reply
:iconjoshuarmour15:
joshuarmour15 Featured By Owner Sep 5, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
I like you.
Reply
:iconaceking90:
aceking90 Featured By Owner Jul 29, 2013
That's insane, who would want the people who owns Wall Mart or McDonalds to be able to wage full scale war. Besides what you gun nuts always forget is that you are only allowed to bare as part of a well orginized militia.
Reply
:iconalpha-12:
Alpha-12 Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2013
Why would Walmart get tanks? They're overkill for security, are very expensive to buy and maintain plus they'd be taken out pretty quickly by the military considering DC has the luxury to take 100 percent of our pay checks if it wants too.
Regulated at the time meant equipped, and militia's are armed citizens, not the military. And I dare you to join the ATF, stack up on the doors of those who will defend their freedoms and go in first if you support gun confiscation so wholeheartedly. Sandy Hook, although a tragedy, didn't nearly kill as many people as Wounded Knee, where over 300 Indians were murdered in a gun confiscation attempt.
Reply
:iconaceking90:
aceking90 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2013
No a regulated militia meant one that was ran by the state or the nation. The militia was part of the military. Also Walmart would only need a dozen or so tanks then when ever some one goes on strike and pickets in front of one of their stores they can just claims self defense and run their workers down. Secondly Wounded Knee was about removing native Americans off of their land not weapon removal. Thirdly no one is trying to take away all of your guns, just the ones you don't need and shouldn't have, like an artomatic rifle because when the second amandment was made they hide single shot weapons that took over a minuet to reload. 
Reply
:iconalpha-12:
Alpha-12 Featured By Owner Nov 4, 2013
Look it up, they were attempting to disarm the Indians first so they wouldn't resist. Also, who would want an automatic? The recoil makes it VERY hard to aim, that's why the M16 went from "rock and roll" to "3-round burst." Plus it depletes ammo very quickly, so it's just good for suppressive fire. And if you want to change the Constitution, I suggest you draft an amendment. Since the Internet wasn't around during 1775, the logical conclusion would be for the government to censor DeviantArt if it pleases.
Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, Gaddafi and Mao introduced gun control-look how well that worked out.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The real reason why our elected representatives want to disarm the public is so they can stay in power, 'cause the idea of the 2nd amendment is for the people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny. People should be able to have guns and anthropoligically speaking, armed murder is less likely to happen as a result, and I have little to no interest in guns, nor do I desire to ever own one.
Reply
:iconaceking90:
aceking90 Featured By Owner Nov 2, 2013
Our representatives already stay in power because idiots keep voting for the same guy over and over no matter how bad he is.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×





Details

Submitted on
December 24, 2012
Image Size
97.4 KB
Resolution
750×600
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
3,065
Favourites
78 (who?)
Comments
267
Downloads
34
×