Propaganda for your civil rights

1st-2nd-amendments_7639.jpg (91 KB)

futuregun_7820web.jpg (112 KB)

modern_arms_7685web.jpg (117 KB)

suppressed_sten_mk2_5545.jpg (70 KB)

Credit to Oleg Volk
olegvolk.livejournal.com/

Images:
1- Freedom of the press, freedom of armament for the public … both important, both have evolved since the Constitution was written.
2- Is your right to arms limited to antiques? (Bonus points for figuring out the props)
3- If it is limited to older technology, where is the cutoff, and who makes that decision?
4- The most likely result of oppressive gun laws, any auto-body shop could churn these out by the thousands.


| Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Subscribe
    Notify of
    48 Comments
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    TGGeko

    Those are all really cool looking guns.

    The Matrix: Rebooted

    If you make the argument that the 2nd amendment should extend to modern firearms, then where do we draw the upper limit. Should people be allowed to own 50 caliber machine guns? Tanks? Missiles? Nuclear weapons?
    When the Constitution was written, people were allowed to own the most powerful weapons of their day. Why shouldn’t the 2nd amendment to be extended to the most powerful weapons of today?

    Giestblade13

    Back then, the average citizen could afford to arm themselves with a rifle (or long gun prior to rifling technology), and it had uses beyond defending one’s own person and property, such as hunting. Not everyone could just afford to go out and buy a cannon, or hire a standing personal army (only equivalent destructive force to a cruise missle I can think of), nor would it make much sense to. If you could afford to just march right out and buy a tank/missile/nuke, and could expressly justify the need for defending your person and property with them, then your… Read more »

    The Matrix: Rebooted

    So the limit is what an average person can afford to buy? I don’t see that in the Constitution. I also don’t see anything about “justify the need for defending your person and property”. It does mention a well regulated militia. A militia is a military force, so we should be able to have military weapons. I have a right to own weaponized anthrax… for hunting.

    outlanderssc

    Actually, in the 1700’s “militia” meant anyone with a gun who was NOT in the military, but could be expected to assist the military (under military command) in time of war.

    “well regulated militia” meant the government should keep track of who owns guns and who doesn’t and what their training is so they could be called to serve. I think this is a good idea.

    Regulating what TYPE of gun people could own didn’t happen until prohibition, when rum runners began using Thompson submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns. Care to bring back the glory days of Al Capone?

    The Matrix: Rebooted

    I believe it was Socrates that first proposed that recognizing sarcasm was the one true test of intelligence.

    Korinthian

    If you have nukes, the constitution won’t really apply to you.

    When it was written, almost every State and Commonwealth required all men of military age to serve (or have a good reason, such as the Amish that have a moral prohibition about killing). In addtion they required those persons to furnish their own weapons, in recognition that it is too damned expensive for the State to buy everything.

    tiki god

    people are permitted to own 50 caliber weapons.

    LRichardson

    But not 50 caliber machine guns.

    WistfulD

    Hard to believe that there are people who consider this argument cohesive.

    fortyseven

    Worst strawman argument ever
    “If…then” usually have no causative correlation

    Kishi

    Fuck that, I want a ray gun.

    outlanderssc

    It’s the old “all or nothing” argument, the idea that outlawing even the most high powered weapons is the same as outlawing ALL weapons.

    I’m less worried about my rights to own a pistol than I am that the guy down the street might get a grenade launcher. And I’m concerned that he wants one.

    sambo78

    This

    nyoki

    This, etc…

    Raibumas

    gun laws in UK are very strict, and violent crimes are MUCH lover then in US, actually USA has biggest crime ratio in all western coutrys. probably becouse any jerkoff can buy a 9mm gun, you can buy ammo in a freaking wallmart. that’s just insane.

    Maxwell Edison

    Is it insane? Or is it that we’re just SO sane that any any jerkoff can buy a 9mm gun?

    Daremo
    nyoki

    Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour’s decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning.

    What does that mean exactly?

    TrAyVon'S GhOSt, nuCca

    I think there was a curfew before. And bars closed at 11. And ya railbumas is exactly wrong. England is far more violent than the US. Hell ratio wise gun ownership is higher in Canada than in the US but you guys think we don’t have any. They made the laws stricter here so you can’t own hand guns that are small enough to conceal easily and went on a witch hunt for gun owners. Then gun crime went up as per usual. Gun crime is the same as any crime. Its the result of quite a few social factors… Read more »

    LRichardson

    Not sure what you mean by ratio wise… Old figures from the 1996 suggest 22% of households in Canada had a firearm. At the same time 49% of US households had a firearm. This suggests more than twice the number of households in the US have a gun than Canada. More recently in 2006 there were 26,000 private firearms per 100,000 people in Canada. In the US it is very hard to estimate due to reporting requirements, but most estimates suggest between 260 million and 350 million firearms in the US. Taking the low figure of 260 million, that is… Read more »

    nyoki

    49%? That seems a very high number. Where does that stat come from?

    LRichardson

    The percentages of households with a firearm data was taken from “Firearms in Canada and Eight Other Western Countries: Selected Findings of the 1996 International Crime (Victim) Survey” available from Canada Firearms Centre. Unfortunately, they have taken the link to the original down due to the age of the data not representing current trends (which is why I highlighted that it was old data).

    nyoki

    Results:

    38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners. 64% of gun owners or 16% of American adults reported owning at least one handgun. Long guns represent 60% of the privately held gun stock. Almost half (48%) of all individual gun owners reported owning ?4 firearms. Men more often reported firearm ownership, with 45% stating that they personally owned at least one firearm, compared with 11% for women.

    Ando

    If you’re citing the Daily Mail then you’re obviously not from the UK.
    The Daily Mail is a joke. One of those really bad racist jokes. They hate everything and only perpetuate their existence through spreading lies and fear.

    Violent crime might be high here but I’d wager homicide is a lot lower here than it is stateside.

    The UK violent crime figures will soon see a massive drop as the new conservative government is relaxing rules regarding reporting of crime. This way they can be seen to lower crime rates by merely fiddling the figures.

    LRichardson

    It doesn’t work very well to compare “violent crime” from country to country. Different countries have different definitions of violent crimes. In addition to wide variations in reporting , what might be considered a felonious assault in one country might be classed as harassment or public intoxication in another. Murder and armed robbery are perhaps the best comparators as they have relatively consistent definitions and very consistent reporting rates (in the western world). Murder rate is probably the most applicable to gun laws. UK: 1.6 murders per 100,000 people. (2009) Src: UK Home Office US: 5.0 murders per 100,000 people.… Read more »

    GrandAdmiralThrawn

    You are of course, wrong about the violent crime.

    We are also much better at catching people here 🙂

    Reaver

    lulz bill of rights, i’m pretty sure the government revoked that a while ago

    sambo78

    For all the hand wringing, the 2nd is the only one the government won’t touch. Primarily because the populace is so concerned with it.

    The others are on their way out though. Does the 4th even count for anything anymore, other than nostalgia?

    rainman97361

    How many laws did the Columbine shooters break, and would any more laws have made a difference ??
    Criminals by nature ignore laws that are inconvenient to them, gun control laws are no different.

    sambo78

    So if I understand you, gun control laws don’t prevent crime.

    SO by your logic, there should be equal gun crime in counties with stricter gun control.

    Right?

    Don’t get me wrong, I support gun rights, but some gun control isn’t a bad thing. I don’t need a Howitzer.

    Also, do me and other gun owners a favor. Don’t make crappy arguments like this.

    When you make some gross generalization based on your opinion that ignores facts, it makes it harder for gun owners who are trying to make a rational argument on the subject.

    Reaver

    Well you could argue that South Africa has stricter gun laws that the United States but they still have considerably more gun crimes.

    sambo78

    Well, reality is much more complex than generalizations on message boards can adequately describe.

    Saying “Gun Control Fixes Nothing” is as asinine as saying “Gun Control Fixes Everything”.

    BTW, didn’t know about South Africa. Good point.

    GrandAdmiralThrawn

    You can own a howitzer.

    One of my co-workers owns 5, one gun short of a full battery of Confederate artillery. They to re-enacting…and shooting competitions. And I know any one of those howitzers would destroy a Humvee.

    sambo78

    Damn.

    LRichardson

    Well, yes, but those are muzzle loaders. Granted, while the paperwork is a PITA, civilians CAN legally purchase new rocket launchers, grenade launchers and howitzers. Take a browse through the Class III NFA section on Gunbroker.com. Such weapons are classified as “Destructive Devices” and are subject to a $200 tax stamp. If the projectiles themselves are explosive, those projectiles are ALSO destructive devices and each one is itself subject to its own $200 tax stamp. Thats $200 of tax -per shot-. I’m sure this cuts down on recreational shooting. ; )

    outlanderssc

    It might also be noted that “personal defensive arms” are not mentioned in the Constitution OR the bill of rights. The second amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security OF A FREE STATE”. So it says you have a right to defend THE STATE, not your own person or personal property.

    Also, the Minié ball was invented in 1847, so a revolutionary soldier as shown would have been long dead before they even existed. They were mostly used in the Civil War.

    GrandAdmiralThrawn

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    That means the right to defend myself, my property, and my person.

    outlanderssc

    You miss the point – I’m not saying you don’t have the right to defend yourself, but that “Personal defensive arms” are not mentioned in the Bill of rights as stated in the OP.

    The only arms mentioned in the bill of rights are arms necessary to the security of the state. The Tenth Amendment, which you cite, does not mention firearms at all.

    The OP claims that personal defensive arms are listed in the Bill of Rights, which is not accurate.

    Paul_Is_Drunk

    The basic idea behind this is that there are no other countries in the world, and somehow what happens in those countries doesn’t set a precedent. “If we make guns illegal, then everyone will start making the most insanely powerful guns on the planet, and crime will skyrocket!” Yeah, except that’s the complete opposite of what happens in every other westernized nation that does that.

    That’s to say nothing of the all or nothing approach.

    flintlocke

    American’s really need to accept that A) the British aren’t coming back, and B) Red Dawn is never going to happen.

    People claim they have the right to own guns so they can defend themselves, but the only people they should justifiably be using them against are people with other guns. Which is kind of a gigantic circular problem, innit?

    Everyone wants to shoot somebody, and no one wants to get shot.

    Seems like the Constitution has become like the Bible — people interpret it however they want to need, to rationalize their behavior.

    GrandAdmiralThrawn

    @ flintlocke: A: Do not be so sure. 50 years from now, the England we know may be gone, and it could very well be just another angry Moslem country. B. Could always be China. Could be anybody. No country is immune to the threat of invasion, no mater how powerful. France was the 2nd largest Empire in the world and Germany was nothing after WW1. Things change. C. There is always our government, which is one of the reasons that amendment was placed in there. The founders were terrified of a standing army, to the point they wanted to… Read more »

    Ando

    Meh, angry muslims, angry christians, same difference. All godfags are iherently irrational. If your country does get invaded I doubt the invaders will go knocking on every door.

    Why do gun owners alwasy think somone is going to break into their house to fuck or kill their wife and kids? What kinda neighbourhood do you live in?

    Perhaps instead of buying firearms you should just move out of Rapeypsychosville and move someplace where you don’t have to fear for your life and anal virginity every single day.

    outlanderssc


    If, in 50 or 100 years, the entire world is indeed against us and we need to arm the populace to supplement an overwhelmed military, all it would take is invocation of martial law by the President. We don’t need to preemptively legislate for a possibility that likely will never occur.

    flintlocke

    Trust me – Americans are essentially the only people on the planet who legitimately think anyone wants to invade America. It’s gun-lover fantasy. Religious factions will never mobilize as an organized army. And any country of power wouldn’t invade in any traditional fashion where being a gun-owning citizen would matter. To what end would they? To inherit America’s failing infrastructure? And grotesquely overweight and under-educated population? What do Americans believe exists in your country that is so valuable that another country would be compelled to come in and take it over? Seriously? I have little doubt that you and your… Read more »

    ItalianDragn

    Katrina.

    There were people who found themselves having to defend against bands of ‘Bad Guys” who were roaming around taking food and possessions and whatever else they wanted. Militias assembled because there was no other help.

    DMYTRIW WDS

    But zombies.

    Your argument is invalid.