Fighting the narrative-shifting rhetoric that muddies public understanding of 2A freedoms.
We all know that gun-control advocates usually have a sub-par understanding of firearms. Be it U.S. firearm laws or how a gun functions, proponents of stricter regulations almost always unwittingly reveal their ignorance. A common and egregious example: the Second Amendment pertains to hunting. Again, this mischaracterization reared its ugly head, this time by the Washington Post’s editorial staff.
In a recent article regarding David Chipman’s confirmation hearings to lead the ATF, the Post claimed, “AR-15s are unnecessary for hunting, protection or any other legitimate civilian application, and their popularity reflects poorly on supposedly responsible gun owners.” Whoever penned this claptrap is clearly out of their depths or dishonest. Neither becoming of a major media organization. I say this not simply because I disagree with the position (though I do). But because it’s a distortion of one of this nation’s most important founding principles.
Nowhere in the Second Amendment is hunting mentioned. Militias are. In particular, it specifies a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Anyone with a passing knowledge of American history understands the militia then, as now, is comprised of private citizens with their own weaponry. Not deer rifles, but so called weapons of war. The right is so sweeping, contrary to what President Joe Biden might say, citizens even owned cannons at times.
The scope of the Second Amendment is understandable when put in context to America's Founding Fathers' experience. They resisted tyranny, fighting a violent revolution against the world's most powerful army. In response to this, the least of their concerns when crafting the Bill of Rights was squirrel stew. It was liberty and maintaining a free people.
Admitting this truth is difficult for many in today's palliative and decedent times. Blame the chattering class in part. Years and decades of lobbying a flabby-thinking public with phrases such as “responsible gun ownership” and “assault weapons” they've shifted the debate. It's so askew even ostensibly pro-2A advocates often use the anti's language. This is perilous footing for defenders of liberty.
As to the WaPo editorial, the writer either doesn’t understand the Second Amendment or they're attempting to mislead. Maybe both. Otherwise, how could they deem an AR-15 has no legitimate civilian applications? Beyond the rifle being a stalwart defensive tool and on target hunting iron, it is exactly the firearm the Second Amendment intends to protect. It, the AK, FAL, AR-10 and a slew of other semi-automatic firearms are the modern equivalent of the privately-owned military arms of the past. Computers haven't restricted the First Amendment; advancements in firearms technology haven't restricted the Second.
Do not allow yourself to be swept along with the gun-grabber’s paradigm shift. It's time to stop ceding the narrative to politicians and media talking heads, politely agreeing legitimate gun ownership is the right to hunt. The Second Amendment is enshrined in the Bill of Rights precisely to preserve liberty—even if its defense requires another revolution. In this country, you
are free to express your opposition to this right, if you wish. However, it won’t change the amendment's true meaning.
Ignorance and deceit will sadly continue to control the narrative, much to the chagrin of patriots, civil-rights advocates and the historically literate. Don't let it. The next time you hear someone imply that the Second Amendment exists for any other reason besides opposition to tyranny, ask them: What the hell are you talking about? No amount of disinformation can change the uncontroversial truth. The constitution does guarantee your right to own weapons of war, and not for hunting rabbits.