HOME | DD
Reddbecca — Where does it say...
Published: 2007-03-06 19:44:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 3102; Favourites: 39; Downloads: 38
Redirect to original
Description
Anti-gunners keep tossing around the tired old claims when referring to what they like to call "assault weapons". They claim "these weapons were meant for killing lots of people very quickly", "these are the weapons that criminals prefer to use", "these weapons have no sporting value", "nobody has any legitimate reason to have one of these", "nobody needs these guns", etc.I'm sick and tired of hearing it. Show me what legislation states that a gun has to possess "sporting value" to be considered legal.
Related content
Comments: 112
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
According to that sentence, a US citizen can own any weapon they want. Whether it be a fully automatic rifle, an ICBM, or a galaxy-annihilating laser cannon(Man I would love one of those...)
I am starting to think I'm a little too pro second amendment... Just kidding! There is no such thing as that!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just to be fair, when the constitution was made. Automatic firearms didn't even exist yet.
So it's possible they didn't even believe or think auto weapons will exist in the future or at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The same also applies to antibiotics and sterile operating conditions. Doesn't really mean or even change anything though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If it's the weapon that criminals prefer to use, then it's the weapon that law abiding, upstanding, righteous citizens need to bear in order to defend peace, law, justice and order from them.
Citizens of the USA are blessed to live in the freest country in the history of the human race, and yes, the right to keep and bear arms is the right that stands in defense of all the others. Never, ever let it go.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm laughing so hard at all these lefties calling it fully automatic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was going to comment on the subject. However, I recalled we are in deviantART, where people is supposed to make ART.
So, instead of a heated debate over the weapons ban legislation, I'll just ask: where in the world is the artistic skills on this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just to the left of the artistic skills on this piece. [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This piece is most likely (both this and the linked paint) a desperate attemp to gather attention in the most insipid and untalented manner possible. Having something like this, which can be made by any doupe, here is to mock on the effort this tries to support.
Aren't there any skilled people behind the badge of NRAA? Or should we take this as a legitimate proof of NRAA being a bunch of illiterate hillbillies?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ha youre a nimrod kid Ive seen the affects of gun control in person it aint pretty Millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese were slaughtered do to gun control
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bitch, please! My country has been gunfreaks-free since 1948. And getting shot in the streets or within your house is one-out-of-two: you're really unlucky; or you pissed off the wrong crook.
Again, my only pourpose here is art, and I proceeded acordingly, making sure to avoid debating wether or not having military-grade weaponry at the reach of the average joe is a good thing or not.
By the way, since I stated I'm covering art only, how about your pictures? Any random hipster will notice the blurry quality of a three picture taken under yellow light (home yellow light bulbs)-what's with this shit? You just tossed your "toys" to the ground and made probably the shittiest photographies of guns I've ever seen here. Kids, and menchilds, displaying their collection of replica and toy guns have dealt way better with the image quality than anything you have done over the last 9 months.
What's it hick? You just came here to berate at people for not sucking the "guns in the hands of potential mass murderers is still a good idea. What if a bear breaks into your apartment complex in New York city? Or another mass murderers comes down the street shouting out loud he's about to commit manslaughter?"
Or maybe your limited education only allowed you to think of this as yet another NRA bunker where to display your metallic dongs, with an occasional pansy displaying drawings of colours and other gay shit?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You just avoided what I said you started referring to my pictures stay on track boy and quit rambling. Every single one of those Cambodians and Vietnamese are just as precious as the ones killed in Newton and Aurora... You think that we are protected from tyranny from the constitution the same one politicians are trying to destroy.. You probably don't know what the constitution is if you are not from this country why are you debating here? You trying to destroy this country.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
An you clearly ignored what I wrote in my first commentm "I'm not going to discuss firearms legislation matters". Indeed, I didn't even touched the subject, to begin with, because we art at DeviantART, keyword: ART. When we're at DeviantARMS, I'll completely ignore your pictures, which are shitty, uninspired, and pathetically executed, and focus on the firearms legislation.
Otherwise, if you insist in ignoring my critique about the "art" here, then I will insist with my statement of NRA members being a bunch of illiterate rednecks who think EVERYWHERE is a firearms forums. Like the maker of the picture above which is amongst the most lazily done cut-and-paste ever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We have the freedom to start debating anywhere we want you can take your gay fake guns and shove them so far up your ass where shit comes out of your damn mouth....oh.... wait shit already does. hahahahahhahaha dingus
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, I also have the freedom to decide the subject I talk about. And you have no actual right to force a debate over a subject which hasn't been addressed. Like me only complaining about the lackluster quality of this piece. Couldn't the hillbilly making that shit of a picture put a little more effort and make a George Washington painting hold a machine gun? Well, it was as easy as that, but no.
So, yeah, I don't have to discuss that with you since it isn't within my interest to touch the subject right now. And, speaking of shit, then what is it then what comes from the mouth of the guy who brings a subject to a table where it isn't being covered? Like forcing weapons legislation in a site "dedicated" to art when the main suibject is the quality of the art-wannabe piece?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
fuck art ya hippie, ya good keep exercising your freedom to your opinion i like that. And if i hadn't said this before i don't give a flying fuck about art
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I just want to add a few points, which may have already been made.
1. the second amendment protects the right to bear arms to maintain a militia, which is a army of the people to protect the security of a free state. A militia is a military of the people, and this for this "military" to defend itself, it will need weapons. Now naturally this should include full automatic weapons, anti armor and anti aircraft weapons. This of course is taking it to the extreme; there are too many stupid people out there to let that kind of hardware out, and I feel the US military does a good enough job of defending us. This does leave the enemies within the country. The right to bear arms helps citizens defend against those who intend to infringe upon their rights (your life is a right). Basically the point is the 2nd amendment does not protect "sporting weapons", it protects "assault weapons", weapons that one can defend themselves with. The police wouldn't always be there.
2. The only things you need are air, food and water.
There, if I repeat anything that has been already been said here, sorry. I really don't feel like reading all the comments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you even a Marine? I remember before I got deployed in Vietnam in 1971 I had to take an oath and that was to protect the constitution. You dont even deserve to wear that uniform...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry if I was miss understood, but I support the right to bear arms. The point I was trying to make that the second amendment was made to protect the right of Americans to own 'assault' weapons. The second part is that some say we don't need these types of firearms. However that is not the way we work, we have the right to pursue whatever we please.
Sorry if I was misunderstood, the comment I wrote was kinda half-assed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The ignorance displayed in the responses to this posting speak volumes for the condition (and conditioning) in this country and around the world. I suffered through the almost 8 hours of both Judiciary Committees on the AWB of 2013 and the exact same ignorance found here, is found in the halls of our government. This is what we face as gun owners and it is not only going to be difficult for us to defeat where the second amendment is concerned, but as a civilization.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves in Jacksonville, Fla., and Paducah, Ky, and prevented it. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.
The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life. The more the Afro-American yields and cringes and begs, the more he has to do so, the more he is insulted, outraged and lynched."
The brilliant words of Ida B. Wells-Barnett
In her time the winchester was the "assault weapon" of its day, at a time when the U.S. Army was transitioning from a single shot rifle (trapdoor springfield) to a five shot bolt action rifle (the Krag-Jorgeson rifle). The first semi-autos came out when the military still used bolt-actions; the winchester 1907 could hold twice as many rounds as the 1903 springfield. The anti-gunners would rather a woman be raped, then her defend herself with a gun; they would rather one be lynched by klansmen than have a Black man carry a weapon capable of outshooting his bigoted adversary. I am a Democrat, but my party has left me in favor of the limousine liberals that can give them the money to keep running, and I can safely say that with the massive gun control foolishness in my state of MD (that will likely pass) I am left with no choice but to support the Republican candidates for as long as it takes to get sanity.
Thank you for this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If you have a large animal like a bear or a wolf charging at you, which would you rather have, a slow bolt action that takes time to aim and holds only five shots, or a semi-automatic weapon that has a thirty round magazine that you can squeeze off each round as fast as you can pull the trigger, I think the answer is quite obvious there, but still sporting reasons should not make a fire arm legal, its legal because the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives you the right to protect yourself from any threat including a tryannical governement so that say, what happened to the Armenians in Turkey, the Jews in WW2, the Chinese in Nanking and later under Mao Zedong, the Tutsies in Rwanda can't happen to Americans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love the question, "Why do you need that?" It really means "I don't think you should have it". Also, a few folks have it absolutely right on the fact that hunting isn't the issue. The constitution actually doesn't guarantee the right to hunt. The right is to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a militia (i.e. minutemen). So, if you feel that you are responsible enough to own a piece of hardware that will make you an effective minuteman, the govt cannot infringe on that right. Hunting is actually just a nice aside to the 2nd amendment and legally, it could be taken away very easily with enough support. In fact a few states, Nebraska for sure, have passed constitutional rights at the state level to make that a tad more difficult.
Here are a few things to think about, the argument that making a crazed shooter reload more will help is a farce. In instances where shooters had magazine jams, nobody was reported to have tried tackling them. Most people go into a passive survival mode in these situations. They hide and run. The 9/11 terrorists had no guns yet they killed and caused more damage than the Connecticut shooting by far. Also, the time to transition to a second weapon is always faster than reloading. With all of the panic buying right now, there will be far more of these rifles on the street today than there were before this mess. If they are banned, people are going to sack them away. They won't see the light of day, but people (good and bad) will still have them and maybe even buy/sell them illegally. Let's be real. This law would only make more good guys into criminals on paper even though they've done nothing but possess a firearm they've had for years and used legally and responsibly.
People that support the AWB are afraid of nothing more than a piece of metal. They should be afraid of crazy people using them and NOT the 99.9999% (that's all but one in a million) of people who own them legally and use them responsibly.
Don't forget, the GOP owns the house. The bill wouldn't even come close to passing as is. It'll get compromised at best. I can see maybe 10rd mag restriction, more paperwork, maybe no more private sale, and something like the last ban at best. In the hopes of compromise, I would be willing to give up one or two of those things. However, I think we will see that AWB proponents won't want to give even a little.
Sorry this is so long. I hope that we can all drop this for a few days and enjoy Christmas as much as possible. Life is too short to do otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ya know what...ALL guns have sporting purpose!! Ya knwo the Street sweeper was declared nothing but a destructive device??? I see so much potential to have nothing but fun with that thing. I mean if THATS destructive then so is a semi shot gun. Guns do not kill people do. Guns are only destructive if the user makes it that way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Those anti-gun claims are as shallow as the bigots' claims about racism! I mean seriously, what prejudice against the rifle with the greater power and rate of fire.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i just read that part of the constitution. . .IT doesent say a thing about the type of firearm. just that we have the right to have guns. damn terrorists, making it illegal for me to go down to the gun store and buy a Masada
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
WTF!!!!! gun-toting american, u dont need an automatic weapon for slef defense, for sport, even as some decoration that you americans feel the need to use to say "hey look at me i could kill you, im pretty impressive" the only use is mowing down multiple people, or complete destruction of property, which theres plenty of other things to satisfy your american need of destruction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 6
"American need of destruction"????
I'm usually civil in my discussions, but I'll make an exception.
Go fuck yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You don't need a car, and you can kill a person with that. You don't NEED a butter knife, but you have it. WHY? You don't NEED clothes. You don't NEED anything.
You seem to not NEED a brain, because your not using it right now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
so its good for the a to have it but not you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh look, another blithering idiot who, despite not living in this country, seems to think they're qualified to tell us what we do and do not need.
1. Owning guns isn't about "looking cool". It is about defending myself from scumbags and criminals or anything else that wants to cause me harm.
2. Making stupid, unjustified generalizations makes you look like a total moron.
3. It's not your place to tell me what I do and do not need. In fact, the constitution says just the opposite, or can you not read plain simple English? What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" is so hard to understand?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
WHAT ABOUT ZOMBIES!!!! ONLY 40000000 rounds down range can kill them!!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well for starters, the gun in question isn't an automatic, it's not a machine gun.
And second, if the people themselves have absolutely no need for guns like these, because they're only used for killing large groups of people indiscriminately, as is the claim, then why should the police have them? How are they only capable of killing large groups of people when in the hands of civilians, yet when the police have access to them the same is no longer true?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
..... I NEVER MENTIONED IF IT WAS SEMI OF FULLY AUTOMATIC!!! It doesnt matter it still causes a lot of damage and fast. Second, because the police may have to use that much force and have a much larger chance of using it against people in the right situations. Plus if you need a semi-automatic to handle whoever the attacker/s is, your most likely screwed anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It's definitely a semi-auto. You can see there are only two positions for the fire selector.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
not if you react quick enough
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
whats not sporting about it u can take a deer with either rifle
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
(accidently clicked joy)
If I were to pick up either of those guns and shoot someone in the head with them, would they arrest me? Or would they arrest the gun? In other words who killed a man...me or the gun?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The AR-15 looks meaner so it must be more dangerous, right?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The same thing has been said about blacks and mexicans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I did, or I would have been underground, twice. One person was on a killing spree with a machete, killed twelve people before I killed him. the second was a road raged driver that tried to run me over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the bad guys will always have guns. saying "we" don't need them won't protect us from the criminals
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And why don't we need guns?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>