The Second Amendment’s 27 Words Protect Gun Rights, Not Hunting

bear hunter woods rifle hunting

(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

By Joe Bartozzi

U.S. Sen Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) joined Everytown for Gun Safety’s vice presidential webinar forum where she trotted out her yarn about gun laws and Uncle Dick in the deer stand.

It’s time we get Uncle Dick down from there. First of all, deer season has been over for months; now, he’s just poaching. Second and most importantly, these gun control laws that politicians banter about have nothing to do with hunting. It’s time to make our elected officials read and understand the U.S. Constitution they swore to defend – including the Bill of Rights – and live up to the words that are written.

Hunting is certainly a beloved recreational activity by a large percentage of gun owners. For some, this might even be their reason for owning a gun. They are a means by which to harvest wild game and put food in the freezer and on the table. In 22 states, the right to hunt and fish is explicitly protected.

But the idea that the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting is a red herring and is completely false.

It’s Not About Hunting

The hunting misnomer is a favorite of gun control politicians. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked hunting as he unilaterally banned modern sporting rifles throughout all of Canada. “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer,” he said.

To be fair, Canada doesn’t have a constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. The United States does, however. It’s simple. It’s short, just 27 words. The Supreme Court held that it applies as a right of individual Americans – not the government, and nowhere in that short sentence does it once say anything at all about hunting.

Not once. Not even a hint. No innuendo. Nothing tongue-in-cheek. It’s so clear, even a politician can understand it. Or should at least. Never underestimate a politician, though, and Sen. Klobuchar wasn’t the first.

New York’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo bellowed at all Americans, “It’s simple, no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer…” That was as he jammed through the New York SAFE Act, a sweeping set of gun control laws in a midnight vote.

New York’s SAFE Act was passed with no hearings, no testimony, no time for opponents to exercise their First Amendment rights and make a case to their legislators.

Campaign Reload

Former Vice President Joe Biden conflated the meaning of the Second Amendment in an interview with Field and Stream’s Anthony Licata in 2013. Licata asked him directly what the Second Amendment means. Biden agreed it is an individual right, adding, “But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense.”

In that same interview, Biden said he believes the government has a right to limit the firearms an individual can own, specifically, modern sporting rifles. He claimed the rifle was not protected because it’s not usual. “If you have to go up into the Poconos and go bear hunting or deer hunting with that weapon, and you need a clip that has 30 rounds in it, then you shouldn’t be hunting,”  Biden said.

But there are nearly 18 million modern sporting rifles in circulation today.  They are used legally every day for home defense, recreational shooting and, yes, even hunting.

Joe Biden

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Biden’s misapplication of Supreme Court rulings and his hyperbolic rhetoric continued. He goaded gun owners on the campaign trail comparing rifles to fighter jets and rocket launchers. He did this even as he argued for DNA-enabled technology for firearms, nationwide gun registries and exposing the firearm industry to harassing litigation that would threaten the entire industry.

What’s Not Said

What Biden, Sen. Klobuchar and the rest of the candidates that dropped out along the campaign trail never talked about was the criminal. They didn’t talk about actually attempting to reduce crime. They never spoke about soaring crime in areas where there is the strictest gun control.

Election 2020 Beto O'Rourke

Robert Francis O’Rourke (AP Photo/John Locher)

ChicagoPhiladelphia and Baltimore are all examples of cities that press for more gun control, but whose politicians refuse to address crime or the criminals perpetrating those crimes. During the coronavirus crisis, prisoners were turned out of jails, including murderers. Police were ordered to stop arresting for certain criminal charges. The results were growing crime rates.

Here’s what else the politicians refuse to address: these gun control laws they foist on law-abiding Americans do nothing to address crime because criminals don’t follow the law. Department of Justice surveys of prison inmates show, time and again, criminals overwhelmingly obtain firearms through theft and the black market.

Universal background check laws, waiting periods, registration schemes and a list of other gun control ideas are only observed by law-abiding citizens. Felons bent on criminally misusing firearms don’t fill out background check forms in dark alleys. They don’t submit their names to the FBI to have them say they can’t posses a gun.

coronavirus gun sales store

People wait in line to enter gun seller Tanner’s Sports Center in Jamison, Pa. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Politicians also ignore that gun ownership is increasing even as crime has steadily declined. Nearly 19 million Americans have concealed carry permits in the United States today. It increased by 1.4 million people in 2019. That doesn’t account for the 18 states where citizens have a constitutional right to carry a firearm for personal protection.

Gun control politicians hover and nod approvingly around Biden when he berates voters who question his gun control platform shouting at them, “You’re full of sh*t!” They believe the Second Amendment is a problem to be fixed. At campaign fundraisers, they speak of it only as a loophole or a privilege that should be reserved for a select few. They don’t see it as a right to be respected and defended. It’s a cancer. If they can excise it, cut it out, isolate it, it will wither and die.

The first step for these folks is to get America to believe that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with a God-given right. Instead, say it’s about hunting. After all, that requires a license.

comments

  1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    “Canada doesn’t have a constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. The United States does, however. It’s simple. It’s short, just 27 words.”

    Just 27 words. And yet trained legal “professionals”, judges, and politicians everywhere can’t seem to understand the 2A’s simple meaning. Even a 4th Grader can read it in five seconds and understand what the Founders clearly wrote.

    Travesty.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      maybe a “27 words” campaign might be persuasive.

      1. avatar MariaG says:

        Hi everyone, come here to meet for sex – http://gofuck.club/thetruth

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Dan Zimmerman, please do something about this spammer…

        2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          I’m a firm believer in ‘try before you buy’ and have invited ‘maria’ over to convince me she’s worth it, and so far, she’s just been a tease…

    2. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Damned deliberate obfuscation and consternation foisted upon it by the power-mad and perennially afraid.

      That’s a sentence you could niggle about, if you so chose. The 2A is much clearer.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      There’s a reason for all things.

      prej-uh-dis
      an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

    4. avatar AC says:

      Trust me when I tell you that politicians and others in government know and understand very well what those 27 words mean and what the intent of the Founding Fathers was… and which was to provide citizens with the means by which they could repel and put an end to a government that became tyrannical. And it is precisely for that reason that they work so hard at doing away with individual gun Rights, even to the point of completely ignoring the supreme law of the land and violating the oath of office they took.

      Understand that until such time as an amendment is passed that specifically addresses the provisions of the Second Amendment and alters the clearly expressed individual Right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment remains as the law of the land and is NOT subject to change via any act of the Congress or by presidential executive order nor by any re-interpretation by the courts. Every single law that infringes in any way on the Right to keep and bear arms is in fact unconstitutional. But never have I heard of this argument being made in any of the high court cases involving gun Rights.

      Look, the 18th Amendment gave us the era of Prohibition and that was the law of the land and remained so until the 21st Amendment was passed to undo the mistake that was Prohibition. That’s the way our country’s law works (or at least is suppose to work). The Constitution, as amended by the Bill of Rights and all subsequent amendments, are the law of the land and neither the Congress nor the President nor the Supreme Court can change that without first going through the constitutional amendment process, because without first doing so they all lack any constitutional authority to make any changes to what is the supreme law of the land.

      And if there was any “sporting purpose” that the Founding Fathers might have had in mind when drafting the Second Amendment I am sure that it would have been the shooting of tyrants!!!

      1. avatar Seentoomuch says:

        Amen, brother, amen.

        1. avatar Noamsaying says:

          There is a video on the web of Uber liberal Hubert Humphrey acknowledging that the 2nd is about protecting citizens from a tyrannical government.

        2. avatar Al Sand says:

          I agree !

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        AC,

        I firmly believe that there are indeed some anti-2A politicians who clearly understand what the Founders intended, and what our rights are as citizens. They proceed to connive and scheme nevertheless. Just look at Pelosi, Schumer, Newsom, et al. They are dangerous.

        I also firmly believe that the rest of them have no clue, and that can be said about everything a Congressperson’s job entails. Civics, personal rights, economics & budgeting, etc. Just look at AOC, Tlaib, Omar, Waters, and so on.

  2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    “After all, that requires a license.”
    so does ownership and carry, in hellinois and elseplace.
    the anti tactics are brilliant and too often effective.
    the word and awareness of 2a rights is increasing though.
    me, i’ d just like to see a few hundred thousand picnickers (why is there a ‘k’ in there?) fire up some barbies this coming holiday weekend and wag their shlongs at baby groot.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Nothing beats a good schlong wagging by God, especially in a stiff breeze 😁

  3. avatar eagle10 says:

    The demotaters might want to think about this:
    Who remembers what happened the last time tyrannical governors tried to flex their muscle against regular citizens in this country?
    What was the outcome?
    Hint: It is NOT a racist answer for those of you who may go there.

  4. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Think. Use your head for something besides a hat rack.

    TPTB know exactly what they are doing. They always have. This covid BS is just the latest in a long string of opportunities they have taken, or manufactured, to eliminate freedom from societies around the world. Including, and perhaps especially, the USA.

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Read those words many years ago and like many passages in her book it was eerie.

  5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Ah the un American Left and they’re sporting purposes and hunting. If they only had a effing clue,It’s All About Hunting,NOT !

  6. avatar enuf says:

    The right to keep and bear arms is both an individual right of The People and a collective right of the State. It relates only to the defense and security of the State specifically, as stated and of the individual as you cannot achieve the one without the other.

    Hunting is not an enumerated right. Even so you cannot have hunting if the People lack the right to keep and bear arms.

  7. avatar Randy Jones says:

    Amen.

    Liberals hate guns and belittle religion. But when the defecation collides with the rotary atmospheric oscillator, the first this a liberal does is pray that God will let someone with a gun show up and protect them. and the weird thing is, if we can we do. And, you know, I wouldn’t want to be any other way. Practice regularly, practice often, be prepared to defend that which you love.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Remember when Congress (Dems and Repubs alike) all stood on the Capitol steps and sang God Bless America together in a short-lived moment of unity after 9/11?

      The Left of today would like to forget that moment.

      1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

        It’s hard to imagine that we’ll ever have a time of unity like that again, even if we are attacked. The divide is too great.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          We know who the quislings will be. Just raid the Democrat party offices for their lists of registered voters. Even though many are already dead.

  8. avatar Leighton says:

    Arms.., not just guns…arms.
    Keep AND bear. AND.
    Shall not be infringed.- ONLY amendment with this wording. Perhaps that is meaningful?
    Believe they left it vague for a reason.

    1. avatar anarchyst says:

      You are correct. Before the enactment of the unconstitutional “National Firearms Act” in 1934, cannons, mortars, and machine guns were perfectly legal in American citizens’ hands without any sort of permit or “tax”.
      The “National Firearms Act” was an attempt to tax firearms out of existence by imposing a $200 “tax” on many weapons. In fact, pistols were also included in the initial draft of the act, but was opposed by women.
      Thankfully, the “tax” was never increased. $200 was a lot of money in 1934 but is merely a tax “nuisance” today. Now if we could just get rid of the Hughes Amendment…

  9. avatar Brodirt says:

    We need a politician to make the positive case about the Bill of Rights.
    Other than the 10th amendment, the Bill of Rights conveys no rights.
    The Bill of Rights protects natural rights from encroachment by Government action, nothing else.
    The first 9 amendments are simply laws that only the Government can break.
    No politician promotes the argument this way, I think they believe it to be to wonky and that the people are to dumb or indoctrinated to understand.
    They/we aren’t.
    Make the case and you will win.

  10. avatar Debbie W. says:

    If The Second Amendment is to survive it needs to be taken off the worn out, tit for tat discussion table.
    What needs to be the only thing on the discussion table is the overwhelming evidence that Gun Control is Rooted in Racism and Genocide. The one question for Gun Control Zealots is, “How do you Gun Control Zealots justify your Racist and Nazi based agenda?

  11. avatar TP says:

    I can’t stand when a politician or media spew ‘this’ or ‘that’ is not needed for hunting when referring to the 2nd.

  12. avatar Thank god gun sales are up! New converts!🇺🇸❤️👍😷 says:

    Let’s “regulate” their first amendment rights, after all it does not say “shall not be infringed”!
    Let’s have 20,000 laws about their speaking! Prints, background checks, speech free zones…?
    Support convention of states!

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Beware of a “convention of states”, a wolf in sheep’s clothes.
      Why else do so many demoncraps (communist party USA) support it? Because they plan to subvert the initial purpose and destroy the Constitution as written.

      A question: What makes you think that a Constitutional Amendment, or a rewritten Constitution, will be any more effective than what is already there? The left ignores it anyway.

      This is like liberals saying “we need more gun control laws” because the existing 20,000 are being ignored by criminals.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        Not everyone who ignores assorted gun laws is a criminal. You should make a distinction between a criminal and an outlaw. There is a difference. 🙂

        1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

          Gunny,

          In general most conservatives are law abiding, they even obey most laws they don’t like.
          Criminals don’t care what the laws say, they are going to do what ever they want.

          In historical legal systems, an outlaw is one declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, all legal protection was withdrawn from the criminal, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system. In early Germanic law, the death penalty is conspicuously absent, and outlawing is the most extreme punishment, presumably amounting to a death sentence in practice. The concept is known from Roman law, as the status of homo sacer, and persisted throughout the Middle Ages.

          What is your definition of an outlaw as opposed to a criminal?

          Semper Fi !

        2. avatar Montana Actual says:

          Literally no difference. Just depends on who words it, and the “crimes” committed. The government labels patriots as terrorists every day.

  13. avatar Darkman says:

    The 2nd A protects and preserves nothing. For it is only words. Words have no effect to change or create anything. It is the actions of Patriots and Citizens that give the 2nd A it’s authority. It is also the lack of action by Citizens that allow it to be Infringed. When citizens fear the consequences of fighting for their Rights/Freedoms…More than they fear the lose of those Rights/Freedoms. They become Subjects and Tyranny prevails.
    Keep Your Powder Dry…

  14. avatar RondaWillliam says:

    Yorkshire Tea Bags 3.25 Kg
    Read More

  15. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “Guns like the AR-15 aren’t used for hunting and they’re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose: fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible. . . ” Senator Dianne Feinstein

    Feinstein is right about this even if she says it for all the wrong reasons. While an AR pattern rifle isn’t actually the “weapon of war” gun-controllers like to claim, it’s close enough for the practical uses inscribed in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment institutionalizes within the structure of our government the rights of free Americans to defend themselves against governmental tyranny.

    Instead of monopolizing power in the hands of government—a belief that is at the core of gun-control ideology—our revolutionary founders knew that when governments have that kind of monopoly on power, they can too easily become tyrannical. Because of this, our founders intended that government power should be shared by free citizens. That AR-15 with its 30 round magazine and ability for accurate rapid-fire that she complains about is the perfect weapon to defend against tyranny. Perhaps that’s why she so stridently tries to make its mere possession by free citizens illegal. We should always remember that Concord Bridge was the defining moment in our nation’s birth.

    1. avatar Perry says:

      A friend once said that “a license is when the government steals your rights, then sells them back to you.”

      1. avatar Montana Actual says:

        What that friends name “freedom’?

        That reminds me, I have to go register my truck and renew my license… Sucks, huh. At least in the days of horses they had no way to track you other than word of mouth and sightings.

  16. avatar cgray says:

    If Democrats dispense with the filibuster next January, you goobers can kiss your ARs goodbye. Should be entertaining to watch all the Special Forces In Their Minds types meekly surrendering to Democratic Party Storm Troopers(cops).

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Hey teacher, cgray isn’t playing nice. He just called me a goober…

      1. avatar Dave G says:

        Haz:
        It’s better than being called a “cgray.”

    2. avatar Someone says:

      Like they did in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York, right?

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I will say it because nobody else will. The 2A
    Is for citizens to use kill tyrannical local police and sheriff deputies. Because they are the “first line” of tyrannical government the average citizen sees.
    Read about the Athens Tennessee revolt and the Deacons for Defense and Justice.
    They took on local government tyranny using loaded weapons. And in the Athens Tennessee example. The citizens used explosives to fight back against tyranny.

    The “wolverines” will take care the military.

    Before the Obama administration came along, military grade weapon transfers to civilian police were just a trickle. Obama flooded local cops with select fire weapons and MRAPS.

    Laws against law-abiding citizens owning rocket launchers and grenades are unconstitutional. We get to have the same Weaponry that the government has. And we get to make our own if you can’t afford to buy it at the local rocket launcher store.
    (Smile)

    A morally straight police force has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      If I had it my way, I’d have a non penetrable fortress all around. My own SAM, TOW, fuck, I’d even invest in some nukes, space capable rockets and satellites. Owning a tank is on my bucket list too… it’s on page 4,528.

Leave a Reply to ColoradoKid Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email