By Allen Ball
That question has two answers, one short and one long.
The short answer is: yes, in every way.
The long answer will take a minute, so let us get to it; there is no time to waste.
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.
Read that amendment in the box above.
The framers of the United States of America Constitution did not intend to have citizens unarmed and weak to fight off tyranny, so the most extraordinary minds included the Second Amendment. It was written with ZERO confusion or addenda needed. Nowhere does it list which Arms or reasons in that amendment.
Nor did the framers intend to protect just hunting rifles. Incidentally, when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that was the same gun. If you visit HuntingMark.com, you can see many practical applications of all rifle, shotgun, and handgun platforms doing both protection duties and hunting duties. There has never been a legal case that defines a hunting gun vs. protection gun exclusively.
The American Revolution’s final straw was the “Red Coats” banning and forcibly disarming and raiding private homes for the seizure of weaponry. Think about that, what is going to come after you can’t fight back? So, the farmers and industrialist in America kicked the hell out of the most powerful military in the world at the time, with help from allies – (this is not a full history lesson) – and in the very founding documents ensured a foreign or local government would never make the citizens weak to tyranny.
Making any form of gun control violates the second amendment! There are court cases brought to the Supreme Court for a citizen’s right to own a “stun gun” and covered by the Second Amendment, same as a samurai sword or a big f***ing hammer; you are covered to own that item.
Some national regulations are placed by unelected bureaucrats, and not laws passed by Congress and signed by the president have the power of law and do not answer to anyone. This agency is the BATFE -Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
In nearly every issue published by huntingmark.com, there are articles showing hunting applications of a modern sporting rifle, almost every shotgun out there, and handguns. Also, articles are looking at a more tactical application of that weapons platform. There is no confusion around this issue unless someone wants to create confusion. To make a statement that a 30 round magazine is not needed for hunting is a joke. What does it matter how many rounds the magazine carries? And if you enjoy sport shooting, that 30 round magazine is excellent fun and allows more extended shooting between reloads. In the same joke, or statement, golf clubs are the most unnecessary items sold, and golf courses are a waste of public space and money that could go to house the homeless. How many people did I piss off?
Right, if that statement pissed you off, you are paying attention to the ridiculousness of gun control. If that did not get the point made, let me lay a bit more on ya, you don’t need more than three clubs to play golf; the rest should be outlawed.
I am sure the argument of many rounds in a gun, made to look like a military weapon can harm many more people might make a bit of sense. So will the bumper of my truck if I drive it through a crowd. The problem is the lack of value over human life and people going to a completely crazy level of extremes, and most of the time, no one can even tell the cops or survivors why.
So, should we up the game of mental health, yes. Should we take the AR Platform or AK platform gun from a guy hunting coyotes that keep harassing his sheep in the middle of nowhere? Nope!
Suppose you value your rights to self-protection from all comers, hunting rights, and enjoy your chosen shooting sport. In that case, you need to investigate the organizations leading the charge, pooling resources, fighting this BS at all levels, and voting. It is not up to me to advise anyone to vote for, but you need to keep yourself informed and leave the world of blissful ignorance behind.
https://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/
https://www.saf.org/
https://www.nssf.org/category/government-relations/
https://gunowners.org/
Keep your head up and watch your six.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal.
Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE
Well reasoned post! And the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals decision this last August 2020, in Duncan v. Bacerra, enjoining enforcement of California’s ban on the large capacity magazine (anything over 10 rounds) as violating the second and fifth amendments illustrate the constitutional infeasibility of gun control under clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. Why would the most liberal federal court of appeals in the land both invalidate and enjoin enforcement of California’s ban on the LCM? After reading numerous declarations from law abiding citizens who feel the need for LCM to adequately protect themselves, the justices too wanted the same protection. My prediction is we will later learn that President Biden and Vice President Harris own gunmaker stocks and are seeking a replay of President Obama investing his retirement funds in gunmaker stocks and realizing huge profits from their own threats at gun control while gun sales now soar again at 300%. The AR-15 platform is nothing more than a glorified .223 caliber rifle. In terms of protection and lethality, a shotgun or 9 mm rifle or pistol is preferred. The magazine capacity as Mr. Ball notes is what is key and the Ninth Circuit has found California’s efforts to regulate magazine capacity to no more than 10 rounds unconstitutional. A bunch of hype from bailout era politicians who use U.S. political office to make enormous wealth while creating the need for law abiding citizens to be sufficiently armed.