jthompson108 Wrote:
Dec 30, 2012 9:23 PM
Right, that's my point-- hunting with firearms was assumed to be an obvious right that did not need to be codified as law in a written Constitution in order to be recognized. Which is why Justice Scalia & the Supreme Court deemed the main purpose of the Second Amendment-preserving the militia- to be a form of 'argumentum a fortiori'- arguing from the stronger reason. In other words, if it was lawful that the citizens should 'keep and bear arms' for such an important reason as defense against a tyrannical government (the stronger reason), then it was obviously also lawful that these citizens should 'keep and bear arms' for such basic reasons as hunting (a lesser reason). Therefore, the 2nd Amendment inherently protects the rights of hunters.