• Second Amendment? It’s About a Whole Lot More than the “Right” to Hunt

    Surge Summary: Contrary to what is so often heard from the Left, the Second Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” is not rooted in the need to go hunting. The meaning is a lot more serious than that.

    Over at The Resurgent, Gabriella Hoffman reviews the history:

    On December 15, 1791, the Second Amendment was ratified in the Bill of Rights, or the 10 first amendments, to the U.S. Constitution.

    27 words clearly state what rights are safeguarded. It reads like this:

    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.

    Those words and how it’s to be interpreted are very clear.

    The Second Amendment is about protecting yourself against tyranny—whether against a tyrannical government or for self-defense purposes.

    She points out what ought to be obvious, but clearly isn’t any longer: nowhere does the Constitution base the right for Americans “to keep and bear arms” on the importance of hunting. It just isn’t in the document, anywhere.

    So why do Democrats constantly connect hunting with the Second Amendment and then tie ownership of firearms like the AR-15 (Armalite Rifles) to the practice?

    True enough, many hunters are gun owners and believe ardently in the Second Amendment – but that’s not what the Amendment is all about.  Indeed, many hunters use AR-15’s while stalking game. Beyond that, AR-15s have been used in many cases of home defense. Stephen Willeford, for instance, used one to repel the evil shooter in 2018’s Sutherland Spring’s massacre.

    Their goal is to minimize gun ownership through incremental bans and by labelling all firearms they dislike—especially semi-automatic firearms, or the majority of firearms available for purchase on the market— as “weapons of war” and “assault weapons” to legitimize confiscation efforts.

    Had a ban on this so-called “assault weapon” been in effect, the Odessa, TX shooter still would have committed his crimes. Gun control laws are shown to do little to deter or minimize the instances of these horrific attacks. This detracts from the root of the problem.

    They aren’t hiding their intentions anyone. Pay attention.

    Anti-gunners like to falsely claim possessing so-called “weapons of war” and “assault weapons” like AR-15’s – which, by the way, aren’t assault weapons — should be disallowed to civilians; and are not appropriate for hunting.

    This anti-2A tactic is nothing new: The Federalist noted past Obama press secretary Josh Earnest confessed he believed Americans shouldn’t own guns that aren’t used for hunting.

    “You don’t need an assault rifle to go hunting,” Earnest said. “It’s not part of your family heritage.”

    Then there’s presidential candidate and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro who announced hunters and sportsmen “understand you don’t need these weapons of war.” He was referring to AR-15s and “other similar weapons.”

    On a recent Meet the Press appearance, Castro said,

    “Often times it’s actually hunters and folks that shoot on a range that understand that you don’t need these weapons of war, the AR-15 and other similar weapons. I think more and more, many of them get it.”

    In line with Castro, former Obama administration official and Senior Advisor David Axelrod echoed the nonsense that AR-15’s are weapons of war, out of bounds for hunting. His argument? He’s apparently ignoring the actual, stated purpose of the Second Amendment, tweeting,

    “This is an absolutely serious question: These weapons aren’t used for hunting. What is the justification for their commercial sale?”

    Again, the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. Period. And it’s rich to see these people claim to be the voice of hunters. The last administration put a huge target on hunters’ backs and their compatriots in newly-blue state legislatures have pushed or signed anti-hunting legislation. …

    National Democrats shouldn’t claim to speak for gun owners nor hunters. They have proven recently they don’t have their best interests in mind.

    The right to own a tool for protecting oneself and one’s family from dangerous criminals and as a hedge against potentially tyrannical government doesn’t have to be a complicated matter. Just pay attention to the words of the Second Amendment and let them speak for themselves.

    Too many Leftists don’t see this because they don’t want to see it.

    H/T: Gabriella Hoffman/The Resurgent

    Image: Adapted from: Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=989417

    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend