A Complete List Of All The Times The US Constitution Mentions “Hunting”

Begin list

End list

This is what the US Bill Of Rights says :

being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It was derived from the 1689 English Bill Of Rights

no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence

The right to bear arms is derived from a right to freedom, security and defense. It has nothing to do with hunting.

Lefties don’t care about law, the Constitution or common sense. Everything with them is about irrational fear and a belief that totalitarian power will make them safe.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to A Complete List Of All The Times The US Constitution Mentions “Hunting”

  1. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    ABSOLUTELY!

  2. benfrommo says:

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Ben Franklin

  3. Steve Tabor says:

    I haven’t studied this, but just judging from the quotes given, the two statements are contradictory. The US Second Amendment says nothing about a citizen’s need for guns for protection, but instead states that the people may keep and bear arms to protect the state (“the security of a free state”). The British “Bill of Rights” from 100 years earlier says that people are free to have arms “for their own defense”. Sounds like the US drafters feared the British might try to take the country back.

    It looks like something was lost with the new Constitution, not gained. I’m not surprised. The US “Founding Fathers” left a lot to be desired when it came to organizing a democracy. Many of them didn’t even want a democracy. They feared the people more than they did the king. It took a lot of debate just to get the rights we ended up with. There was a long debate on “The Bill of Rights”, which was kept out of the first draft of the Constitution but was added later as a series of amendments. Some states wouldn’t sign the document until the BOR was included. Even the BOR wasn’t enough for Rhode Island.

    There’s plenty of history to this. You could look it up. An inspiring adjunct to that history is the book, “The Founding Finaglers”, by Nathan Miller (1976). A great treatment of a lot of US characters from that era, 1775-1800 plus. Good stuff. The title says it all.

    • I haven’t studied this, but just judging from the quotes given, the two statements are contradictory. The US Second Amendment says nothing about a citizen’s need for guns for protection, but instead states that the people may keep and bear arms to protect the state (“the security of a free state”).

      No. The people were to keep & bear arms to maintain a free state. Yes, part of the purpose was defense of courntry from outside invaders, but if you bother reading anything written by the people who actually wrote it, you’d see that they were uniformly in favor of the idea that an armed populace would also prevent tyranny at home.

      The 2nd amendment does not grant any rights: it simply prevents the government from taking those rights away.

  4. David says:

    Yes, the “operative” word here being “FREE”. A synonym for LIBERTY.

  5. Blade says:

    We can just ask those that drafted and lobbied for the the new USA federal government the constitution created and limited …

    Alexander Hamilton in Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

    “What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen…The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”

    James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

    The 2nd Amendment is the insurance policy that keeps the federal government subordinate to the people that granted it some powers in the first place.

    It is getting close to time that this insurance policy will be utilized because the democratic-socialist liberals are intent on calling our ( and the Founders’ ) bluff.

    • TonyO of Aust says:

      Blade – “The 2nd Amendment is the insurance policy that keeps the federal government subordinate to the people that granted it some powers in the first place.”

      Judging by the way the bastards behave, you’d think it was around the other way…

  6. Bob Berwyn says:

    Umm, you left off the first part, where it talks about a well-regulated militia, but then again, cherry picking is nothing new for you.

    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.

    • Is there something ambiguous about this statement?

      the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

      Property crime here in Colorado is very low, because the rest of us own guns and criminals know it. You should own one too, but it is nearly impossible to purchase one any more.

    • Glacierman says:

      Umm, Bob, I don’t see the word “hunting” in the first part either. Do you feel you have shown Steve’s post to be in error? What’s your point?

    • johnmcguire says:

      Hey Bob , just go ahead and keep being that little slave to the establishment that you seem to want to be , but don’t lay your weak-minded arguments on me .

  7. Dear “Bob Berwyn”,

    Where did you go to school? Detroit?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s