Dakota Beacon

“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.”

Plenty of chatter about the Second Amendment is heard these days. Those seeking change to restrict gun ownership propagate a lot of disinformation to serve their ends.

The hunting canard is one of the more fraudulent arguments fostered by firearms opponents. Unequivocally, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has nothing to do with hunting. It never did and it doesn’t now.

The hunting argument became a Red Herring used by opponents of gun ownership appealing to the emotions of the uninformed. During the writing of the Bill of Rights and the debates that followed, hunting was never inferred. It was a non sequitur. To raise the issue now distracts from the original, perpetual, intent of the Second Amendment, i.e., that individuals may protect themselves, their property and their liberty.

In their own way, liberals are not anti-gun. They very much approve of guns. The elite have bodyguards armed with automatic weapons. They send their kids to schools employing armed guards. They just don’t want the general public to have firearms.

The real issue is control. An armed citizenry is the final defense against tyranny from a local, state or federal government. An armed citizenry is the last thing elites want.

Maybe the reason we aren’t having an honest conversation about guns, or about the Second Amendment, is because we aren’t honest about why those guns are protected in the Bill of Rights in the first place.

The Founding generation mistrusted standing armies and were not disposed to creating a federal armed force. The young nation was isolationist and feared foreign powers less than they feared a powerful central government. That generation knew the chains of bondage.

James Madison authored the Bill of Rights. He also wrote Federalist Paper 46 expounding on arms and the common man.

In the current debate, President Obama is more apt to use gun control to polarize than to protect. On the advice of his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel (now Chicago Mayor presiding over 500 city murders), the axiom is “Never let a crisis go to waste.” The corollary is “Create a crisis if none exists.” Obama’s policy is to take firearms out of the hands of good guys. In no way does it address armed bad guys.

Should we have a national conversation about gun ownership and the Second Amendment? Of course we should. But it must include more than just controlling legitimate gun ownership. Some things you will never hear discussed: 1) Most gun violence is black-on-black; 2) most gun violence occurs in cities and states with the strictest gun control laws (Chicago); 3) reduced gun violence has more to do with good police work than gun control (New York City). There are other issues that can be discussed, but the Second Amendment right to bear arms for hunting purposes does not rise to the level of consideration.

The Second Amendment couples nicely with the Declaration of Independence. “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation...”

The Second Amendment is the final arbiter against a despotic government. It is no accident that the Second Amendment follows closely on the heals of the First Amendment, the guarantor of political free speech.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting per se. The Second Amendment exists for the citizen for whatever lawful purpose the citizen deems.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).