We don’t have a lot of time to round up the reactions to this stunning piece of work here, but you can read the entirely of Freedom In Peril: Guarding the 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century here, thanks to Boing Boing. The artist is anonymous, but it’s groovy that he or she used that woodcut Barnes and Noble style for the book! Matt High rounds up more calm, rational discussion on these here internets.

UPDATE: Okay kids, that’s it. No ARGUING ABOUT GUN CONTROL! Comments are closed. We do welcome informed debate on the THIRD AMENDMENT, however, the restriction on quartering soldiers in private homes.


  1. It’s really too bad this isn’t a parody, because it’s SO beautifully drawn and colored. As a “serious” piece, it has to go in the same category as “Triumph of the Will” or “Birth of a Nation”: great art in the service of a stupid idea.

  2. Reviewing the PDF file, it turns out this is not a “graphic novel” at all, but an extensively (and rather lushly) illustrated pamphlet, geared towards a very specific audience — people who tend to contribute large cash to conservative causes. It is clearly not intended to appeal to moderates or fence-sitters.

    And any billionaire who thinks he’s God IS a scary motherfucker.

  3. It’s like the Nazi Propaganda posters — really sucks when the bad guys do nice-looking stuff. Makes their crap seem much more inviting than it should.

  4. Yeah, the brochure is ham-fisted, but so is most material generated by people who are deeply passionate about a particular subject. For example, Michael Moore’s anti-gun “Bowling for Columbine” is just as over-the-top as this brochure — except from an opposite point of view.

    In this brochure, the NRA is apparently making a plea of support to its constituents — a plea that, at its core, is just trying to prevent erosion of Second Amendment rights.

    I see almost identical alarmist, gloom-and-doom language and “chilling” examples used regularly by creators in the comics industry who are fighting an identical fight to prevent the erosion of First Amendment rights.

    The bottom line? The NRA has as much right to lobby for Second Amendment preservation as the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund has to lobby for preservation of the First.

    According to the strict definition of the term, advocacy of ANY viewpoint or cause is “propaganda.” Thus, while the NRA brochure can be defined as propaganda, it certainly is no more evil than would be, say, a CBLDF support brochure.

    Which, by the way, means this inconvenient truth: If one amendment is viewed as untoucheable and sacrosanct by an individual or group, then logic dictates those same people should view ALL amendments as such.

    My view? Well, our founding fathers viewed the Constitution and amendments as living documents, which is why they built a change mechanism into the Constitution in the first place. That being said, the change mechanism is intentionally difficult to trigger, and is a process should not be engaged in lightly.

    By the way, Chris Gall is a kick-ass artist!

  5. “Amendment II
    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.”

    My view? Our founding fathers never expected firearms to spit out hundreds of rounds a second and be readily available to anyone other than a militiaman. Every gun advocate always forgets those four little words at the beginning of the amendment. Since the colonies had never really intended to have a standing military in the first place, those words are obviously meant as a provision to maintain a defense force in an army’s stead.

    The fact that we do have a standing military means that the amendment should have been understood as such. It is my belief that the founding fathers would have slapped their heads in disgust at the easy availability of guns in our time.

    The first Amendment has no such foggy four-word preamble. It says what it says VERY clearly and the NRA has every right under it to spew their alarmist venom. Just like the Klan marching the streets of the old south, I say they are welcome to. Just don’t bring it near my house.

  6. Oh I really hate to start the ball rolling on this as I am sure it can only result in flames & taunts & name calling, but at least for me, that is not my intent. So please M. Gilmore, take my comments in the generous way they are intended. And to those of you hoping to just find an enjoying discussion on comic books, pardon this interruption.

    Those four little words you refer to (‘a well regulated militia’ for those joining the conversation late) referred in colonial times to every able bodied man. And it was not the privilege of these able bodied men to join the militia it was his responsibility and usually his legal obligation. And that responsibility included providing your own uniform, arms, and supplies. I’m not pretending that today our National Guard (who many do not equate with the militia referred to in the amendment) are expected to provide their own tanks & choppers. I’m simply pointing out in our colonial days the militia referred to every free man (many were not) and the reference to the militia implies the purpose of the firearm is to insure that freedom, nothing more.

    The most obvious point of the Bill of Rights is that the PEOPLE mean all free people. (Again, I readily admit the times limited ‘we the people’ to put severe limits or exclude women, blacks, native Americans, and in many places those not of the majority religion). And while the 2nd amendment does start by mentioning the necessity of a well regulated militia (WRM) it does not substitute that WRM anywhere for the people who’s right the 2nd amendment, or any other amendment, defines. The reference to the WRM does not, and certainly not ‘obviously’, redefined the people. If it were only in the guise of the WRM militia where the right to bear arms was codified the extremely clear term of ‘the people’ would not be used. I do not think it can be said clearly enough that the term ‘the people’ had an extremely clear meaning to the founding fathers and it would not be used to refer to only a sub group or only in a specific role. I’m not expecting to sway your belief with this paragraph alone, really, the supporting documents of the time such as the Federalist Papers, the State Constitution of Virginia, personal correspondence, etc. are needed to attempt to do that.

    You are correct in that the founding fathers could never envision the firepower available to people today, especially in the form of a small handgun. However that can be said for many of the amendments and their modern application. The clearest example of which is the web and it’s ability to magnify the power of speech, be it responsible or irresponsible. And the founding fathers had their share of irresponsible speech in the form of partisan newspapers, yet still chose to enshrine the freedom of speech in the BofR. My own opinion, and treat it as only that, an opinion, is had the skies parted and the founding fathers been able to see the coming and comprehend the meaning of the world wide web, I do not think they would have changed the first amendment. Ditto for the 2nd. This argument of modern interpretation being beyond the intent of the founding fathers would be much more applicable concerning abortion, and I don’t even want to begin to touch that hot potato (end opinion).

    I do want to add one other footnote of history, and I do apologize for the length this post has grown to. But when you reference the image of the Klan marching and how though this is repugnant (which I whole heartedly agree) but the strength of the 1st amendment allows this behavior because it ensuring everyone’s freedom of speech. And I know you did not say all of that, maybe I’m inferring too much, I do hope I have not mischaracterized the spirit of your post. But that is what I gathered from your statement.

    In any event, the 1st amendment was/is paramount in fighting organizations like the Klan. However it was the 2nd amendment that protected the very lives of many of the people the Klan terrorized in the night. And sadly, it was the exact same clause of a Well Regulated Militia that the Klan tried to use to deny their victims the means to defend themselves. Jim Crow did not just attack at the voting booth, the water cooler, or the bus stop. He first tried to deny the ability to defend, and, respectfully, it was your ‘obvious’ argument he was using.

    Thank you for your time.