My problem is that when talking about the right to bear arms, it only revolves around either hunting or occasionally protection of yourself and property.
In my readings of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers, it never once mentions hunting or protection of life and property. What is discussed is the right of the people to bear arms to protect themselves from an overly oppressive central government.
I often wonder what would the response from the libs be, were that arguement to be used as a justification for the second amendment. Additionally, if the introduction of evidence were to be made showing our central government can not be trusted and should not be trusted.
The right to self-preservation is unalienable regardless of whether that is written in the U.S. Constitution.