When gun rights are debated, I see entirely too much emphasis placed on hunting and “sportsmen”, rather than on self defense:
Barack Obama’s Sportsmen Plan is a perfect example. It discusses Obama’s claim that he will protect the gun rights of hunters (which is a claim I do not believe, given Obama’s anti gun rights record). However Obama’s Sportsmens Plan, as well as the rhetoric from anti gun politicians, contain no mention of self defense. Instead, they focus exclusively on gun rights for hunting. Also note that this is more than just an issue of semantics. The guns that are suitable for sporting purposes are often woefully inadequate for self defense.
As I’ve discussed before, the Second Amendment was not crafted to protect the right to hunt. Instead, it was designed to protect the security of a free state, which means firearms suitable for use against criminals. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in D.C. v. Heller further affirmed this fact, expressly mentioning self defense as the reason to have a gun in the home.
Given those facts, I fail to see why so much emphasis is placed on “Sportsmen”, “Sporting Purposes”, and hunting. While I respect and defend the rights of hunters, I personally am not interested in hunting. The only “sporting” purpose I use my guns for is trapshooting, and target practice to maintain (or improve) my level of skill. I keep firearms to defend myself and loved ones against home invaders and sadistic criminals. Also note that this is more than just an issue of semantics. The guns that are suitable for sporting purposes are often woefully inadequate for self defense. Anti gun politicians who take their security so seriously should remember that us ordinary citizens like to be secure in our homes too.