Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
January 18, 2013
Image Size
63.8 KB
Resolution
600×480
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
1,952 (1 today)
Favourites
47 (who?)
Comments
80
Downloads
45
×
OUR RIGHT TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS by xerox100011001001010 OUR RIGHT TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS by xerox100011001001010
Obama; slowly chipping away at our second amendment. Only seven rounds allowed? BULL-$HIT.



THE SECOND AMMENDMENT; AMERICA'S FIRST HOMELAND SECURITY.


SECOND AMMENDMENT

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."


.....SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.....
Add a Comment:
 
:iconshank117:
shank117 Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
we are anonymous
we are legion
we do not forgive
we do not forget
expect us!
Reply
:iconmarine1337:
Marine1337 Featured By Owner Nov 12, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms: The Governments Secret Destroyers of the 2nd Amendment. How's that for a Motivator?
Reply
:iconskarabog:
Skarabog Featured By Owner Jan 22, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
keep and bear arms, all good and well, but do you REALLY need a machine-gun?
Reply
:iconbiozz:
BiOzZ Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
i have mixed feelings about it but i do have a few assault rifles (AK-47, AK-74 and an CTAR ) but i dont think one should have a drum mag XP
but i do think in any way the 2nd amendment is put is not to protect your famally from a guy with a bat its to protect your country from the leaders

the people should not be affread of there government a government should be affread of there people
Reply
:iconkri-mika:
kri-mika Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
For well "regulated militias" using muskets in the 1700s. I don't see any British running around shooting at us.
Reply
:iconvenomemf:
VenomEMF Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The terminology used in the second amendment refers to citizen militias, or literally you, your neighbors, and others in your city bringing your personal firearms and fighting for your state. As the "well regulated" part means they shall be well equipped, the idea was for the average Joe citizen to be guaranteed the right to own the same kind of firearms and equipment that an army soldier would have, so that in time of need, that citizen could defend their personal freedoms, as well as fight for the state against a tyrannical government. As such, even current regulations fly boldly in the face of the second amendment, infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms blatantly, but because the modern era nanny government wants to gain more power and give individuals and states less wherever possible, they get away with it. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't think Obama is really plotting total domination and dictatorial rule, but at the same time, it is my right as an American to be duly prepared on that small chance that shit really does hit the fan.
Reply
:iconaz-3d:
AZ-3D Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
You probably don't see any of the threats that really exist.
Reply
:icondeadmaninc285:
DeadmanInc285 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
Oh. Is that in case a deer starts shooting back? XD
Reply
:icondeadmaninc285:
DeadmanInc285 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
Doubtful.
Reply
:iconzakuga:
ZAKUGA Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I like this.
Reply
:iconbitteryetsweet:
bitteryetsweet Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
1911, just in case 911 is too slow.
Reply
:iconvenomemf:
VenomEMF Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
+1
Reply
:iconhectordefendi-light:
HectorDefendi-Light Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
xerox100011001001010, if I were You, I'd hide comment on all the anti-gun assholes who comment here...
Reply
:iconxerox100011001001010:
xerox100011001001010 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Student General Artist
Well, we all have our own opinions, and the right to say them, so I'll just ignore them. I blocked JacThatOut100 because he was just being plain rude.
Reply
:iconvenomemf:
VenomEMF Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Good, that guy's "views" were vile, despicable things to be saying about a nation of ~360 million people.
Reply
:iconhectordefendi-light:
HectorDefendi-Light Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Cool, and good
Reply
:icontrailslayer:
Trailslayer Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
Oh, You're a gun nut.
Reply
:iconnanashi89:
nanashi89 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
[link]

It's official, the American people are Public Enemy #1. So when the schmuks in blue hardhats rise, will we puss out like a bitch, or will we fight back?
Reply
:iconjacthatout100:
JacThatOut100 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
i am so happy that i visited america in my childhood and do not want to travel there anymore... when you have to answer stupid questions when you arrive there with a plane...
'and why are you here? what will you be doing in america?'
'well, you know, just for the heck of it, shoot a few people possibly children... but wait, you do not need people like that, you have enough of them yourself...'

trigger happy monkeys with thirty full-autmatic pistols lying around, waiting to shoot something if it is a squirrel, a dog or a human being, it is a great land

in the end what obama does now is pretty useless, ninety percent of all those people should have never been allowed to even buy a gun and now take their favorite toy away, of course now he is the bad guy, but it is not really his fault alone, the former presidents let this all happen
Reply
:iconjacthatout100:
JacThatOut100 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
you will think you are right and i will think i am right and we both will probably not change our views
Reply
:iconjacthatout100:
JacThatOut100 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
well, let's stop this, it is useless discussing anyway...
Reply
:iconnanashi89:
nanashi89 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
"trigger happy monkeys with thirty full-autmatic pistols lying around"

You mean like this guy? [link]
Because as the creator of this piece said. The day will come when we need that one right itself to protect the other rights.
Reply
:iconjacthatout100:
JacThatOut100 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
people always say that they need the full-automatic guns to protect themselves... and now the million dollar question: From what? hordes of zombies like in the resident evil movies? or aliens? or maybe mutants? when the t-virus infect millions of people who are then standing right before our house, then they will be glad to have bought so many guns...

what do you do with all this full or half automatic pistols? there are just lying somewhere around in the house, then you got a kid who is maybe bullied and then decides to take a gun and shoot little children... great, i always wondered why a school teacher needs so many guns at home... would have been better if she had not any -> no dead children and maybe she would be alive too

to the speech of the idiot who calls himself a father, in my opinion bullshit, this is not about god or praying, this is about guns and all those monkeys who are legally allowed to buy thirty of them and then proclaim 'i just bought them to protect myself and my family' and there is a difference if you kill someone with a knife and a full-automatic gun, just pull the trigger and many people die and you do not get your clothes dirty/bloody, it is so easy

but well, i am kind of amazed that there are only a few innocent children dead, with all those trigger-happy monkeys in america i thought that more would be already dead, but well in my life i do not plan to travel to america anymore so they can keep shooting each other until they are happy... or dead...
Reply
:iconnanashi89:
nanashi89 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
Why do I need an assault rifle you ask? I don't need it for hunting. I don't need it for home protection from a single invader, or even two. So I echo the sentiment of many gun control advocates; Why do I need an assault rifle, with a high capacity clip no less?

Here is why. I need an assault rifle because I live under the rule of a government who thinks it has the right to take away my assault rifle; a government who dictates who I can marry, what I can eat, drink, and smoke; a government who uses force to take my money away from me, who charges me rent (property tax) to live in my own home: a government who commits acts of war without the consent of the people, who murders it's own citizens witout probable cause or due process; a government who has monopolized the currency with which I can trade my goods and services, then devalued that currency through inflation and taxation; a government which uses the tyranny of democracy rather than the freedom of a republic.

To put it bluntly, I need an assault rifle in the event that I might have to declare my independence from a tyrannical government. I'm statistically unlikely to ever shoot an intruder in my home. I'm statistically unlikely to ever be in the position to stop one of these rare mass killings at a school, as these things happen far less often than the media would have you believe. However, whether you are Democrat or Republican, you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)

So, how likely is it you will use your assault rifle to prevent a school shooting? Not very likely at all. However, how likely is it that you will need your assault rifle for the purpose of protecting your rights from a tyrannical government? Well, the fact that we are having this conversation not only shows that it is increasingly likely, but it also clearly demonstrates the reason why the right to bear arms is unalienable.

When a tyrannical government uses it's assault rifles to take away my rights, it would be beyond immoral to expect me to defend those rights with my grandpa's shotgun. That is why I need an assault rifle.
Reply
:iconjacthatout100:
JacThatOut100 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
well then i can just say that you life in the wrong place and should pack your things and move away

and tell me: who would you shoot if you go against the tyrannical government? do you go to a school and shoot all children or do you go to a public place and shoot all innocent bystanders there? do you go out and shoot thirty soldiers who in a way can do nothing against their superior's orders? tell me who would you shoot with a full-automatic pistol? just who?

you formulate it like that 'tyrannical government', but who the hell do you shoot?
Reply
:iconvenomemf:
VenomEMF Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I'm just curious JacThatOut100, where in the heck did you get this idea about fully automatic pistols even being a criminal concern. The mere existence of a fully automatic pistol is incredibly rare, as fully automatic handguns are impractical weapons for military or law enforcement use, so very few have been developed over the century. In addition, fully automatic weapons in general are very, very heavily regulated in America, are incredibly expensive, and require months of paper work, FBI background checks, and BATFE approval to purchase. On top of that, all these types of firearms produced after 1986 are banned entirely. You are literally talking about a couple hundred firearms out of over 300 million firearms total in America. Also, no fully automatic firearms are used in crime in America. In all of history, the only -TWO- instances ever of legal fully automatic weapons being used for a violent crime were a suicide case, and the case of a corrupt cop that used one. That's -TWO- times, ever, in the last nearly 80 years since the NFA went into effect. I realize you are a foreign national, so you are completely clueless about firearms and American culture, but you really shouldn't come in here claiming 80 million people are a bunch of bloodthirsty whack jobs just itching to go out and murder school children. I own a semi-automatic sporting rifle (what you would ignorantly call an "assault weapon"), and all I shoot at is paper bulls eyes and the occasional pop can if I am feeling particularly vicious that day. ;p
Reply
:iconnanashi89:
nanashi89 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
"well then i can just say that you life in the wrong place and should pack your things and move away"

You're telling me the only way to escape a one-world-government-in-the-making is to go to another country under their rule, like the others? Sounds pointless.

"and tell me: who would you shoot if you go against the tyrannical government? do you go to a school and shoot all children or do you go to a public place and shoot all innocent bystanders there?"

All innocent bystanders will be treast exactly as such.

"do you go out and shoot thirty soldiers who in a way can do nothing against their superior's orders?"
There is something they can do. Unconstitutional laws are not laws, so they can disobey.

"tell me who would you shoot with a full-automatic pistol? just who?"
Anybody who attempts to rob you of life, liberty, and happiness.
Reply
:iconjacthatout100:
JacThatOut100 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
woah... you still have not told me who you would really shoot, but it is okay if you do not have a concrete answer, just shoot anybody in your way, that is the solution to everything and they will also have as many guns as you and shoot back, all dead, happy end, right?
Reply
:iconnanashi89:
nanashi89 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
"woah... you still have not told me who you would really shoot, but it is okay if you do not have a concrete answer"

I said, "Anybody who attempts to rob you of life, liberty, and happiness."

Also, might I remind you that lawbreakers are called such for a reason. "Gun-free zones?" Like they're going to drop their weapons because you told them so. Also, it is realistically impossible to confiscate every last gun. Expect plenty to be sold on the black market.
Reply
:iconjacthatout100:
JacThatOut100 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
but do you really need a full-automatic guns for the protection of your house against an intruder? i am okay with normal guns and hunting rifles, but are those full-automatic ones really necessary?
Reply
:iconnanashi89:
nanashi89 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
Recently in Georgia, a mother of twins shot an intruder 5 times.... with a .38 revolver, which only holds up to 5-6 rounds. Can you imagine having to use up all those rounds, or almost all, just to get one thug to stop approaching you?

Also ask yourself this? What would you have done had the thug had a couple of followers by his side? It would take 15-18 shots to stop them all.

You fail to prepare, and you could just wind up preparing to fail.
Reply
:iconmagicpixydust:
Magicpixydust Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Student General Artist
That's stupid. Here in Canada, ownership of a gun is illegal. However you can have a hunting rifle or shotgun if it's registered. If you do have a hunting rifle or shot gun it has to be locked up unless you are hunting. People should have a right to have possession of guns. Despite our laws, people are still being shot. What big difference does this law do it's still happening. What's next, banning people? People are the ones holding the gun, they dont just float up and starting shooting people.
Reply
:iconjacthatout100:
JacThatOut100 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
the problem is not so much normal guns or hunting riffles, the problem are those full-automatic pistols who can kill a lot of people with just one click...
Reply
:iconjusk2ru:
jusk2ru Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Kinda legit actually.
Yeah now I get it...Government should fear the people, not people fear the government.
Reply
:iconpathosesnorms:
PathosesNorms Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist Interface Designer
I shouldn't say anything but things like this just makes me mad. =(
Why do you need gun? Protection? What you're saying then is that someone has to die and that there are no other option. And saying "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." is to Me just as stupid,. You gave them all the rights to buy and bear arms in the first place. They didn't commit a crime until they pulled the trigger into someone.

I have a lot more to say but I'm guessing this could start something i don't wanna finish anyway.
Reply
:iconauaurum:
AuAurum Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
is that a light machine gun around the center left of the photo?
Reply
:iconsaber706:
saber706 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013
well said.
Reply
:iconherioglyph:
Herioglyph Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Don't think Americans need more guns. It's just an easy access to those trigger happy butcher freaks. Militia means in the service of the country, not off duty in their back yard armed to the teeth. That's why I think American's should take example from their neighbours who don't have guns on them 24/7. You have a right to hunt animals with the weapons with a license, and being said that, Humans aren't on that list. So unless you have a good reason to bear them properly, you guys should have all gun's banned from being on your person. It's unreasonable, Inhumane, and it needs to be dealt with immidiately. Otherwise, you're going to have more psycho's kill kids.

Here's a more personal touch: What if a psycho entered your house and butchered your loved ones right in front of you before proceeding onto everyone else you love? Imagine that same feeling that the victims of the last mass shooting feel. Don't be a sick fuck about it. Anyone can hit an all time low and shoot people up. It's called life, no one is perfect. So, if you so believe to hold a weapon in your fingers, go right on ahead. But don't go around with a loaded topic, especially on an art site. You're asking for trouble, and honestly, you don't give a flying fuck about anyone else around you. If you cared for your own kind, you wouldn't be doing this.

Smarten up, and maybe in your free time instead of making these, learn about the world around you.
Reply
:iconzazuyashi:
Zazuyashi Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
Imagine a country where law abiding citizens weren't allowed to have guns because of a law. You think that is going to stop someone who DOESN'T obey the law from obtaining one and performing crimes with it?

Your misconceptions--
1: You assume that gun supporting americans have guns on their person. When in fact, we do not. Most americans with guns have them for 2 reasons. Protection and hunting.

Why are we afraid of people taking that right away? Because when the government goes to far, how are we supposed to protect our basic rights? When the american military is at our doorstep with a rifle in our face, how are we going to defend ourselves. "Oh I am going to punch the man with a gun?" No.

2: I fail to see how it's inhumane or unreasonable to carry a weapon. Human's have been carrying weapons on them since the dawn of time. In fact, there are less personal handheld weapons in the world today, than any other time in history.

3: On your example of a man entering your house and butchering people. If you had a gun in your home, would you not shoot the man to stop him? How are we going to stop gun toting psychopaths if we do not arm ourselves.

My Conclusion: Criminals are not going to obey the laws. So what is the point of adding laws to try and stop criminals from doing these heinous crimes.

As for posting this on an Art site. He placed it in the correct area, so what's your problem? Would you not speak out for something you believe in? You are speaking out right now by posting your own flame baiting comment, yes?
Reply
:iconherioglyph:
Herioglyph Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Yeah, I'd definately speak up for what's right, and this is one of those times. Kids were murdered and all you people give a care about is more weapons. The way you stop crime is by eliminating the options, especially with weapons. It's called Gun Registry, and yes, it's effective.

1. Yes, Humans did carry weapons on them in the time when they were needed to survive, meant to hunt animals and provide for their families. In this time and age, you provide for your families by going to buy your food. Sure, you can still hunt if you want to, but that's only in season. Other than that, there is no reason for a weapon on your body. There should be less personal handheld weapon, outlining the whole "Why do you need it?"

2. Why would the army have any reason to go to your door with a gun pointed at your face? The only time that would happen is if you did something against your country (ie. Terrorism)that would be the only time the militia would come bashing down your door. Otherwise, they're protecting your ass and mine from becoming engulfed in a war. They are the people risking their lives to make sure we're safe.

3. I don't even get the whole gun in the home thing, first of all. Second, Call the police, they can handle a gun toting idiot. Third, If the shot you make is fatal, it's murder, no matter how you look at it. You don't need to take matters into your own hands! You are not a hero, you did not slay a vile beast, nothing!

MY conclusion: If you had more laws and actually respected them, then maybe the criminal activity would cool down. Your president is doing the best that he can to make sure YOU are safe. If you loose a few rights, it might just save you in the end. I don't know why anyone would fight something that could protect them.

You know what, it's probably going to be taken down in a few days if it's been reported. It's not his art, nor should it be taken lightly of. Your country is still in a high alert mode because several innocent people died. Yes, I'm outlining that and everything. Innocent people like you and me, died because of somebody who wielded a gun. Little boys and girls who could've had a future if this one retard didn't fuck it up. Maybe you, as a citizen, should look at things properly. If you had more laws in place, then maybe you would be safer. Yes, I'm angry and upset. I'm validly allowed to make my opinion, but I do know how to think logically and rationally.
Reply
:iconzazuyashi:
Zazuyashi Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
Intro Rebuttal: Criminals who intend to murder multiple children do not follow laws when purchasing weapons. They will go through dealers who circumvent 'registration'. Yes, the deaths were tragic. But don't impose penalties on those who have not done wrong.

1 Rebuttal: I will use your example. If a man walks into your house and starts shooting, are you just gonna let him kill you, or are you gonna go grab a gun and fight back? Protection.

2 Rebuttal: The army example was an example of a future where a government need not fear their citizens because they have taken away anything that they could fight against. I'm not saying that's going to happen now. But I would rather have weapons so that the government can still be 'checked' by it's people.

3 Rebuttal: Yes. Let's call the police while a man goes through your house shooting people. By the time the police arrive, you will be dead. You don't believe in self defense? Is not murder defined as 'wrongful killing'? Would you say that if you were to walk in on someone raping your child, you are just going to stand there and watch? Thinking to yourself... "Oh I can't assault them, it's a crime. Even though they are doing something heinous and wrong."

Conclusion Rebuttal: Criminal activity will go down...because we made more laws? The people who don't obey the law in the first place are going to start obeying it because there are more laws? I fail to see a connection as to why a law-ignoring individual will suddenly start abiding by such laws.

I get it. Kids died. It's awful. It's a terrible tragedy. But don't punish those who didn't commit the crime.

I will add this. I am totally for specific gun regulation. I am totally fine with background checks and what not. I think that's great. But what I am saying is, the laws regarding Clip sizes are going to be ineffective because a criminal does not obey the law.
Reply
:iconcollapsingapocalypse:
making this my bumper sticker
Reply
:iconrwolf1970:
rwolf1970 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Professional Artisan Crafter
Nobody who is not on active military duty 'needs' automatic weapons. NOBODY. They are not tools, they are not hunting rifles, they have no purpose but to kill other human beings. If you 'need' all that to protect your 'rights' then you don't need weapons, you need to start electing people who actually do their job, not line their pockets and bribe the populace into apathy.
Reply
:iconvenomemf:
VenomEMF Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Fully automatic firearms have been very heavily controlled since the NFA of 1934, and are owned by only a very tiny numbers by civilians who have passed through months of federal law enforcement background checks, etc. done by the BATFE and FBI. All further sales to civilians of fully automatic weapons was banned in 1986, so only vintage full auto's, many of them museum pieces, are in the hands of civilians. Only two legally registered fully automatic weapons have ever been used for a crime in the US, one for a suicide, and the other by a corrupt cop. Fully automatic weapons have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The liberal media just wants to trick you into thinking that semi-automatic sporting rifles, which -look- like military weapons, are in fact the same thing. This could not be further from the truth, just as the concept that limiting firearms from standard capacity mags down to an arbitrary 10 round capacity is somehow going to limit firearms violence, which is again a patent lie. It's just smoke and mirrors to make people think the government is doing something to help curb violent crime, when in fact this will do nothing to reduce violent crime, and is simply a baby step in the further eroding of the rights of the individual in America, and of the Constitution on which the nation was founded. I hate spouting rhetoric, but I also hate seeing people make comments that show they have been fooled by the anti-gun political machine.

As an aside, there are a number of recreational shooting events involving exclusively fully automatic weapons and destructive devices here in the US every year, and many of these firearms are owned primarily as collector items or museum pieces. Fully automatic weapons usually cost in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $100,000, so aside from all the massive checks and waiting put in place by the BATFE and FBI, these weapons are also exclusively the play things of more wealthy people. They really are no different than exotic or collectable cars. They have a purpose other than killing, which civilian owned fully automatic weapons are never used to do anyway, and just because you cannot understand or recognize that, it becomes no less true.
Reply
:iconrwolf1970:
rwolf1970 Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Professional Artisan Crafter
Look at the pic posted...
Reply
:iconvenomemf:
VenomEMF Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
It looks like what could very well be a bunch of semi-auto sporting rifles and a semi-auto Browning 1919A6 replica, along with a few rifles I know for sure are semi-auto. Even if these are all fully automatic, the fact remains that fully automatic firearms make up only a few thousand of the over 300 million firearms in civilian hands in the US, and account for absolutely -ZERO- crime. So, why do you care if someone who is rich and passes a whole battery of background investigations manages to purchase a collectible piece of history he/she can only enjoy in a select few venues nationwide?
Reply
:iconvenomemf:
VenomEMF Featured By Owner Jan 19, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I didn't read far enough down it seems. KWarlick, excellent response, truly excellent. :]
Reply
:iconarksorn:
arksorn Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013
Here is a good link on the reason for the second amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting.

[link]
Reply
:iconrwolf1970:
rwolf1970 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Professional Artisan Crafter
Look at the pic. All automatic weapons. My comment was primarily directed at them. Nobody not serving on active military duty has any conceivable reason to own one of these. Hunting I consider a separate issue, as is the issue of pest control on farms where shotguns may be appropriate. There is no appropriate use for an assault weapon beyond assault. Period.
Reply
:iconxerox100011001001010:
xerox100011001001010 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2013  Student General Artist
And we do not 'need' guns. But we should have the choice.
Reply
Add a Comment: