Posted on 10/30/2019 5:12:42 AM PDT by simpson96
(snip) ORourke, who famously declared during a presidential debate that he would take AR-15s and AK-47s, was confronted by a student in Iowa on Friday who described himself as a hunter who uses an AR-15.
What about those people who use that as a way to, you know, get dinner, who live down south who dont really have a lot of options for food, and they dont have money but they can get their own? the student asked.
The student went on to explain that an AR-15 is much more efficient at killing an animal like a deer and how if a weaker gun is used, it could potentially put the animal through more pain, and its adrenaline can spoil the meat.
The answer ORourke gave was classic Beto, proving hes still as clueless and ignorant about the issue as he ever was:
ORourke responded that it was the first time he had heard the case for using an AR-15 to hunt deer, but he said he has heard from Texas ranchers and farmers who use them to fend off feral hogs.
Perhaps a way to address a legitimate concern or need is to ensure that 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, he said.
Watch the student ask the question and Beto respond below:
(snip)
This is just another on a long list of answers hes given that show he has been operating solely on emotion and anger and gross ignorance on this issue for months, which is precisely why he belongs nowhere near the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Very few Leftists understand that ARs and AKs are used for anything other than mass murders, much less for hunting.
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
And yet by doing so, he managed to get Beto to publicly embarrass himself further and drive more Fudds away from the Democrats...
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.
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. Its 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.