Post by hunter480 on Mar 12, 2006 21:20:17 GMT -5
I’d like to get on my soapbox for a minute and address something that you would think wouldn`t even need to be addressed. I was just floored when visiting the Outdoor Life-Big Buck blog-written by Michael Hanback, and I read a post in which the fellow writing was bemoaning the loss of shooting ranges in his area, and stated that if it kept up, he wouldn`t even need his Second Amendment rights. I was stunned that anyone could tie their Second Amendment rights to whether or not he had range access. Then I thought back to other, similar comments I`ve heard by supposedly, well-meaning guys. Like one guy who stated that, heck, we don`t need “assault” rifles to deer hunt anyway.
I know this is a long discussion that can, and hopefully will go on for days and weeks, because it all needs to be talked through. In essence however, the Second Amendment is in no way, shape or form tied to hunting, or shooting range access.
The Second Amendment was intended to ensure the survival of our Republic, and to that point, Thomas Jefferson stated that: “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Jefferson was also charged with this statement: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not associate the Second Amendment with hunting, but with the right of the law abiding citizen to protect himself and his family. It so happens that as law abiding citizens of the United States, we have the right and heritage of also using arms to hunt, but it is dangerous to allow anyone to attempt to tie Second Amendment issues to hunting in any way.
I do apologize for preaching, and especially to those who already understood this basic premise, but it really was unnerving to read the statements from the other forums from guys who so obviously didn`t understand what the whole point of the right to keep and bear arms is about.
My next biggest gripe is the media use of the phrase “assault rifle”, but that`s for another gripe session.
Anyone out there have any comments? Any different views?
I know this is a long discussion that can, and hopefully will go on for days and weeks, because it all needs to be talked through. In essence however, the Second Amendment is in no way, shape or form tied to hunting, or shooting range access.
The Second Amendment was intended to ensure the survival of our Republic, and to that point, Thomas Jefferson stated that: “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Jefferson was also charged with this statement: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not associate the Second Amendment with hunting, but with the right of the law abiding citizen to protect himself and his family. It so happens that as law abiding citizens of the United States, we have the right and heritage of also using arms to hunt, but it is dangerous to allow anyone to attempt to tie Second Amendment issues to hunting in any way.
I do apologize for preaching, and especially to those who already understood this basic premise, but it really was unnerving to read the statements from the other forums from guys who so obviously didn`t understand what the whole point of the right to keep and bear arms is about.
My next biggest gripe is the media use of the phrase “assault rifle”, but that`s for another gripe session.
Anyone out there have any comments? Any different views?
