The 2nd Amendment is not about Hunting – WIBC – Indianapolis News & Politics

Second Amendment

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.

Guy Relfords show on Saturday was about Indiana Universitys symposium The Courts, the 2nd Amendment, and Public Policy. The symposium had the provocative subtitle Just Shoot Me. Academia, liberal courts, and liberal politicians erroneously misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. The 2008 Heller Decision settled much of the debate. Militia does not mean the National Guard. In 1791, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, militia meant the whole of the body of the people. Any member of the community was considered a member of the militia. As Guy has mentioned on numerous occasions on his show, well-regulated does not mean regulated by the government. Well-regulated means a working and or efficient militia.

The President and many liberal politicians believe that the 2nd Amendment in regard to private ownership of arms is for hunting. While many colonialists were expert hunters, the 2nd Amendment was not written for hunting. It was written for self-defense, and the defense against tyranny.

As Guy so excellently explains using Paul Reveres midnight ride,

In riding through the countryside, he (Revere) did not say, The deer are coming, the deer are coming!

Reveres warning was to alert the people to arm themselves against the British Regulars who were coming for them. The Founding Fathers, when writing the 2nd Amendment, understood the importance of the people being armed against tyranny. They lived it.

Listen to the show in its entirety along with older showshere:

Read the original:
The 2nd Amendment is not about Hunting - WIBC - Indianapolis News & Politics