The Gun Thing, Part II: Hunting
Second in a series of notes about the red herrings everyone should be on the lookout for over the next few months in the debate over the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It was assumed by the Founding Fathers that most people hunted, that hunting was as natural a thing as breathing. For most people, if you didn’t hunt, you didn’t eat. So when liberals say something “You don’t need a military rifle to hunt deer,” always remember to put it in the context of the First Amendment to see how stupid it is. It’s roughly the same as saying: “You don’t need a printing press to have conversation over dinner.”
The Second Amendment is not about hunting in the same way the First Amendment is not about dinner conversation.
The press component of the First Amendment is about the freedom of the people to publish things in the mass media, especially things that are critical of the government.
2A is about - and let’s get this very, very clear - it’s about the freedom of the people not to be tyrannized by the government because they are unarmed. Not only is it not about hunting, not only is not about depriving average citizens of military-style weapons… it is very precisely to secure their access to military-style weapons, so that they have a sporting chance at meeting force with force.
It’s true most of us can’t afford tanks and missiles, even if it were legal to purchase them, but just because that’s the case doesn’t mean we’re to be deprived of small arms. If small arms in the hands of a large number of people were of no consequence, then you wouldn’t see dictators and juntas all over the world and throughout history making citizen disarmament one of the first things they do when they seize power.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.