Kurt Hofmann: Judge acknowledges Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting

Very few politicians, no matter how rabidly hostile they are to private ownership of firearms, are willing to risk not claiming to "support the Second Amendment." Anti-gun politicians, in other words, would rather transparently lie about such support, than acknowledge that they would dearly love to gut the Constitutional guarantee of a fundamental human right.

To shore up their dubious Second Amendment "street cred," they often cite their love of hunting. Thus we the voters are subjected to tales of Hillary Clinton's hunting prowess (yeah--a true champion of the Second Amendment is Hillary), photo ops of John Kerry in his brand-spanking-new hunting duds, and Mitt Romney claiming to have been a lifelong hunter, and then when it was discovered he had never held a hunting license, hurriedly switching to billing himself as a mighty slayer of "small varmints." Joe Biden is another who tried to assure gun owners that an Obama/Biden presidency would be no threat to gun rights, because as a hunter he would not allow it, and later went on to advise women to fire shotgun blasts randomly into the air when threatened, and homeowners to fire their shotguns through the doors of their homes.

The correct response to all of these claims is, of course, "So what?" What does a politician's enthusiasm for hunting, even if genuine, have to do with his willingness to fight for the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--or even to simply refrain from efforts to erode it? Are we to believe that the Founding Fathers devoted ten percent of the Bill of Rights to the protection of sport?

More Here at St. Louis Gun Rights examiner