Hunting is not a right

7/27/2019 Hunting is not a right

1/3

Hunting is not a Right

Peter Shumlin, Peter Welch, Bernie Sanders, and Patrick Leahy havetwo things in common (other than being supported by Vermont andAmerican taxpayers). All four have publicly assured their

constituencies that they are profoundly supportive of hunting and justas profoundly opposed to the possession by citizens of firearmsspecifically designed for defense against human aggression.

Certain guns are bad and should be outlawed because they are notsuitable for hunting. Surprise! There is no constitutional guarantee ofhunting rights. Defenders of hunting can point to many benefits tohunters and the communities they live in. Wildlife management forone, healthy outdoor recreation for another, and the idea thatgovernment should not restrict us unnecessarily in the ways wechoose to live. Jefferson called this the pursuit of happiness.

But the Second Amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothingto do with hunting. What it addresses is the right of the people to keepand bear arms for protection against aggression, both foreign anddomestic. Some would argue that we no longer need to protectourselves as individuals because we have the protection of the state.Really? Then why did the writers of the Federalist papers, in support ofthe draft Constitution, argue that the American people need not feartheir government because, unlike Europeans, Americans are armed.

After more than 200 years those words are just as true today.

Interestingly most who argue against such things as assaultweapons, and high capacity magazines are woefully ill informedabout the objects of their hatred. One commentator on NPR recentlyargued that so-called assault weapons are derived from militaryweapons and are therefore things that need to be kept out of thehands of the general public. Apparently he was unaware that Col.Samuel Colts early weapons, the antecedents of todays revolvers,bore names like 1851 Navy and 1860 Army and were produced undermilitary contracts before the Civil War. Nor did he understand that theprecursor of almost all modern bolt action sporting rifles was the

World War I German Mauser military rifle.

For some strange reason, the favorite target of the anti-gun lobby isthe handgun. This is really odd since handguns, aside from sportinguses, are primarily defensive weapons. Wars are not waged withhandguns nor do SWAT teams charge into dangerous situationswaving pistols. So what about pistol magazines carrying 13 roundsinstead of 10? Ask the police who use them. They carry sidearms, not


2/3

because they anticipate getting into gunfights, but as protectionagainst the rare case when they face an armed assailant. Why do theyhave the right to this extra edge of personal security while thetaxpayers that pay them do not?

Then there is the argument that only with semiautomatic riflesequipped with high capacity magazines can a crazed killer destroy thelives of a dozen or more people. The same horrendous result can beproduced with glass jars of gasoline equipped with burning fuses. Whohas not heard of the infamous Molotov cocktail? Shall we also restrictthe sale of gasoline ?

A number of years ago, a crazed killer vented his frustration bydeliberately driving an automobile onto a crowded sidewalk inWestwood, California killing and crippling a large number ofpedestrians. That sidewalk could easily have been a schoolyard.

Perhaps we need to restrict the sale and possession of automobiles aswell, especially those capable of speeds far in excess of 120 miles perhour. Are these the automotive equivalent of the high-capacitymagazine?

We read that in many countries, notably Japan, gun violence is almostunheard of. In America, in contrast, a man who was trained by theMarines to shoot a rifle at one point below the expert level, killedPresident John F. Kennedy with a shot to the head. He used a militaryweapon purchased from a mail order dealer. Days later he was himselfkilled by a nightclub owner who saw himself as a patriot punishing an

enemy of his country. Both shooters would have been qualified topurchase similar weapons under todays laws and even under the farmore restrictive laws being urged by our Governor and all three of ourlegislative representatives in Washington.

In Japan, by way of contrast, members of a cult released deadly Saringas on the Tokyo subway during rush hour killing some victims andsickening hundreds more. Not long after this, a key member of thecult was standing on the street being interviewed on television when aYakuza (Japanese gangster) pushed through the crowd and ripped thecult leaders stomach open with a razor sharp knife. No firearms

necessary in either case.

The NRA has said that all schools should have Federally mandated andfinanced armed security. This too is ridiculous. It is the FederalGovernment itself that, by law, makes all schools into gun-free zones.This law should be repealed and local schools and parents shouldthemselves decide what best protects the children.


3/3

Governor Shumlins argument that the presence of arms on schoolgrounds turns schools into fortresses is equally absurd. When we go tocourt to answer a summons or to file some legal papers, we must firstpass through a metal detector and empty our pockets for inspectionby an armed officer. If we go to the ER in St. Johnsbury, we are likely

to see an armed officer in attendance. Can anyone explain whyhospital personnel, doctors, judges, and courthouse staff need armedsecurity but children do not?

The Second Amendment is one of the most important protections wehave and neither Governor Shumlin nor any of our representatives inWashington would have the nerve to suggest repeal. Instead theyargue for unconstitutional laws that would cut the legs out from underit. They need to be stopped.

Robert Patton

Lyndon Center

Documents

Hunting is not a right