So there’s this.
I grew up a hunter and served as an Army Ranger.
I didn’t take my deer hunting rifle to Afghanistan, nor did I take my assault rifle deer hunting.
Don’t be fooled by the gun lobby. The type of gun matters.
Weapons of war have no place in our communities.
— Rep. Jason Crow (@RepJasonCrow) March 26, 2021
Crow is from Colorado. Growing up a hunter is irrelevant. That’s a canard. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and never was. If people like Crow can convince you that it is, they will easily take away one of our fundamental rights. That is the natural right of self-defense.
Here’s the text:
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.
What part of that addresses hunting?
There is a note to politicians such as Rep. Crow — he shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But that’s what he’s trying to do.
When the Second Amendment was written, many soldiers did take their personal hunting rifles off to war with them. It was all they had. Technology has changed. Crow’s argument, if applied to the First Amendment, would suggest that any technology used in conjunction with the exercise of free speech could likewise be restricted because it wasn’t available in the late 18th century. No typewriters, no computers, no smartphones, no Internet. That would be absurd. No one would think twice about dismissing such an argument. But that’s the quality of logic anti-2A activists routinely get away with. It’s almost as weak as the hunting argument, which is totally irrelevant to the Second Amendment.
When he entered the military, Crow swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, not just the parts he likes. I took the same oath when I joined the Air Force. In this tweet, Crow is abjectly failing in that duty. If he intends to use his position to chip away at the Constitution, he’s doing more than merely failing.
The “gun lobby” exists to protect our Second Amendment rights — civil rights, enshrined in the Bill of Rights — from those, like Crow, who would take them away from us. Many on his side would do away with the entire Constitution if they could get away with it.
Why don’t Democrats such as Crow ever bemoan the “abortion lobby”? Or the “anti-fossil fuels lobby”? Or the “union lobby”? Why do they only criticize the one “lobby” that’s actually a civil rights movement built to protect citizens from criminals and overpowering government (which can be one and the same)? It’s not the “gun lobby” that’s trying to fool anyone. Crow and his allies are doing the fooling. His tweet is but one example.
Crow should stop abusing the moral authority he obtains from military service and study the Second Amendment and its purpose. Study actual history. He would also do well to study up on the Heller decision, which was never about hunting. It’s about self-defense, as is the Second Amendment, and it’s not limited to the technology a heavy-handed government always approves of.