Video: Beto O’Rourke Gives Embarrassing Answer on AR-15s After High School Student Trips Him Up

RedState ^ | 10/29/2019 | Sister toldjah

[BobL]

Very few Leftists understand that ARs and AKs are used for anything other than mass murders, much less for hunting.

[Political Junkie Too]

"...those who have or want to use an AR-15 are able to keep it at a hunting club or at a gun range so that there is some control and safeguard still placed on that firearm,”

This harkens back to the days of the 2nd amendment as a collective right, where all the arms are kept in a central armory in the town square, as if the King is calling all the peasants to war.

-PJ

[Spktyr]

And yet by doing so, he managed to get Beto to publicly embarrass himself further and drive more Fudds away from the Democrats...

[William Tell]

The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, and you do not have to prove some sort of “need” to be “allowed” to own an AR-15.

I think your statement is self-contradicting. If you don't have to prove a need, then use of an AR-15 for hunting is just as protected as for any other purpose.

The Founders could have worded the Second Amendment, "Because a Militia is necessary, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The actual wording does not establish such a strong link between the Militia purpose and the right protected. The right pre-existed the Constitution and would have included the right to feed one's family.

In fact the Militia clause is the "suicide pact" that liberals claim cannot be part of the Constitution. Our Founders were so brilliant that they formalized their declaration of war against their own government by writing the Declaration of Independence. In this document they explicitly declared that the people are entitled to abolish governments. The Second Amendment protects some of the power of the people necessary to do just that.

[Sicon]

There is no contradiction in my statement. I did not suggest that the 2A somehow makes hunting an illegitimate use of an AR-15. My point was that it does not require anyone to prove a “need” (e.g. hunting) in order to be “allowed” to own one. It’s not unlike having to prove that there is some threat to you in order to get a carry permit. The right pre-exists the Constitution, as you say, and having to prove a need or justification to the government is an infringement on that right.