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.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the right for law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms applies to hunting. Nowhere. Talk about an illusory correlation.
So why are Democrats lumping hunting with the Second Amendment and dictating to gun owners whether or not they should use AR-15’s (Armalite Rifles) while hunting?
While the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, many hunters are gun owners and believe in this right. Heck, many hunters use AR-15’s while hunting wildlife species like invasive wild hogs or if they have mobility issues. Moreover, AR-15’s have been used in many cases of home defense and the Sutherland Springs hero, Stephen Willeford, used one to repel that evil shooter.
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.
Recently, two Democrat figureheads who are far removed from shooting sports and hunting falsely claimed possessing so-called “weapons of war” and “assault weapons” like AR-15’s, which aren’t assault weapons, shouldn’t be owned by civilians nor are they appropriate for hunting.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. The Federalist noted Josh Earnest, past Obama administration press secretary, similarly said 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.”
First, presidential candidate and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro claimed hunters and sportsmen “understand you don’t need these weapons of war.” These weapons of war in question, according to Castro, are AR-15s and “other similar weapons.”
He said the following on a recent appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“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,” he said.
Like Castro, David Axelrod echoed the lie that AR-15’s are weapons of war that shouldn’t be used for hunting—by similarly misconstruing the Second Amendment’s purpose.
The former Obama administration official and Senior Advisor tweeted, “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.
For context. 21 U.S. states have right to hunt and fish amendments, but those are independent of the U.S. Constitution.
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.