dapoxetine pharmacie topamax prix lioresal mg prix propecia paris pentasa pharmacie zyrtec générique aciclovir générique finpecia sans recette propecia le moin cher zovirax prix nexium prix terbinafine sans recette periactin prix acheter diflucan en ligne bactrim générique tetracycline sans ordonnance actos sans ordonnance pas cher voltaren furosemide générique acheter priligy mg
    neoral venta libre singulair compra online ddavp barato requip barato topamax comprar online zovirax mg premarin compra online dostinex venta libre donepezil mg cataflam generic priligy comprar en línea diflucan sin receta zetia mg abilify pharmacie meloxicam generic dostinex comprar en línea claritin venta libre cymbalta venta libre cataflam venta libre crestor barato

The Second Amendment is not about hunting

“You don’t need a 30-round magazine to take out a deer.”

If you listen to gun-control advocates talk about their desire to ban “assault weapons” or large-capacity magazines, they always talk about hunting. Occasionally they will mention target shooting. In doing so, they show that they miss the point of the Second Amendment – the natural human right to defend yourself from those who would harm you and your family. While the men who wrote the Constitution had no problem with hunting that was not the primary purpose of the Second Amendment.

Just reading the text of the Second Amendment made that clear. Before the key phrase of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed) the justification for that is laid out: A well-regulated militia is “necessary to the security of a free state.” The purpose of a militia is not to hunt for food, but to provide security.

Keep in mind that when the founders wrote the Constitution, they had also just gone through a war with the world’s most powerful empire, where they were able to secede and form their own nation. It was far from unthinkable that they would need to replace the government they were setting up with the Constitution – perhaps through armed rebellion. That is one of the reasons the Second Amendment is in place.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty…when the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” That is seen as radical today, but is it really unthinkable that this could be necessary at some point in the future? As long as we are ruled by sinful men, we could see our system of government devolve into tyranny. And no, I am not advocating the violent overthrow of or violent resistance to the government.

It would have been unthinkable to the founders that it would be illegal for free people to not have weapons for the purpose of self-defense, specifically designed to deter, repel or neutralize threats against our lives or property. Do not buy fall for the arguments of the Left that they respect the right to hunt or the right to practice at a shooting range, because the Second Amendment is about much more than that.

Scott Tibbs blogs at ConservaTibbs.com. Follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Google Plus.

This post was tagged under: Indiana Politics

Leave a Reply

  • Get our Daily Digest!


  • Get Your Voice Heard

  • Indiana Federation of Young Republicans

    Indiana Federation of College Republicans
  • Smart Girl Summit 2013
  • Get to Know Us