The word hunting appears nowhere in the second amendment

[C C]

RELATED TOPICS (scivillage): Biden calls for weapons ban while freeing international arms dealer ..... Nobody needs an AR-15 for hunting
- - - - - - - - - - 

FOREWORD: I confess that I originally thought this video was a doctored spoof that people were having fun with. Regardless, as Colion Noir reminds detractors below, the original intent to allow the population guns wasn't grounded in hunting and taming a dangerous frontier. 

However, gun control in Russia is arguably weakened enough now that the ruminant orientations of its citizens might have more to do with an inability to overthrow an authoritarian government. Or perhaps the ownership situation is too new to have attained that stage. Or it's just a pragmatic dread -- repeatedly supported by Russia's history -- that an equally bad or worse regime would simply replace the existing one, in the course of a power vacuum (out of the frying pan into the fire). 

With respect to the firearm situation in China, that particular area of ownership oppression might still be sufficient to serve as an excuse (among others). 

In lax, impoverished, and less surveillance-heavy corners of the world, an effective underground is potentially possible for funneling illegal weapons to rebel organizations. (But ironically, some of those governments haven't been quite or severely tyrannical with a capital T -- instead, it's often an extremist group wanting to set up the latter after bringing down the existing state.)
- - - - - - 

The word hunting appears nowhere in the second amendment.
https://youtu.be/z_gJAzuoX_s

EXCERPTS: Your boy Biden has stated or implied over and over and over again that you don't need an AR-15 to hunt a deer. [...] I've said it before and I'll say it again, that saying you don't need an AR-15 to hunt a deer is a stupid argument. The second amendment is not about hunting. The word hunting appears nowhere in the second amendment. The second amendment is about the people having arms to protect this country from tyrannical governments. There's no getting around that. But let's just say for the sake of argument that the second amendment was about hunting. In Texas we have a severe feral hog problem...

Video of Hunters Being Attacked By Wild Boars Proves The Need For An AR-15 ... https://youtu.be/z_gJAzuoX_s

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/z_gJAzuoX_s

[Syne]

The Second Amendment, arguably, isn't even about tyrannical government...since tyranny isn't mentioned either.
It's primarily about security and freedom, both mentioned. The security and freedom of a State is equivalent to those of its people.

[Magical Realist]

The 2nd amendment only applied when we had no militia to defend us. Citizens had to be armed in case of foreign invaders or revolts. Now we have a well-funded and well-armed standing army and the National Guard to protect us. They need to scrap this amendment since it's out of date.

[confused2]

The 2nd amendment only applied when we had no militia to defend us. Citizens had to be armed in case of foreign invaders or revolts. Now we have a well-funded and well-armed standing army and the National Guard to protect us. They need to scrap this amendment since it's out of date.

I feel this is missing the point. Any American can be attacked by a group of feral pigs at any moment - it has been established that the best (only) way to prevent multiple feral pig deaths is by ensuring every citizen is (or can choose to be) armed with an AK-47, AR-15 or equivalent. The American constitution (wisely) doesn't discriminate against criminals and lunatics as they are as likely as any other citizen to be attacked by feral pigs. From the outside (across the pond) there is a tendency to grossly underestimate the prevalence of feral pigs in the United States.

[Syne]

The 2nd amendment only applied when we had no militia to defend us. Citizens had to be armed in case of foreign invaders or revolts. Now we have a well-funded and well-armed standing army and the National Guard to protect us. They need to scrap this amendment since it's out of date.

Pure ignorance right there. The citizens were the militia.
When home invaders break in, you don't have minutes to wait for the police...unless you don't care about yourself and your family. An invader is an invader, whether foreign or domestic. But notice how the Second Amendment also says nothing about foreign invaders?
When a natural disaster happens, looting can occur before an effective deployment of the National Guard. When rioting occurs, you're likely to get no protection at all, if you live in a Democrat-run city. But notice how the Second Amendment also says nothing about revolt?
IOW, you're making up bullshit. Be a man, take responsibility for your own security.

[C C]

An original, key purpose of militias (below) was to protect local populations and states from a domestic threat: A potentially oppressive centralized government and its national military. Doubtless both could be orchestrated together in defense against an external enemy, but that was a secondary in importance role (or at best, equal accompanying role) for grassroots defenders. It wasn't until after the Civil War that the US transitioned from being a Union to a fully hard-core Nation (i.e., the domestic menace potential of "federal government" -- considered from Madison's POV -- heightened to a new level).

The modern-day instances of Russia and China are examples of how a national military can likewise become the arm of an oppressive central government as much as a supposed benevolent one. The idea of militias and early-day promoting of them was a safeguard against such.
- - - - - -

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison.

In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".

Federalist No.46 - Military and militia: During the ratification debate, many feared that the federal government would become too powerful and too similar to the monarchy in Great Britain.

Madison calculated while writing Federalist Paper 46 that the standing military, controlled by the federal government, should be kept under a maximum of 30,000 troops, enough to defend the United States of America against other nations' intrusions, in conjunction with the several states' militias, so to counter hostile foreign invasions when required for national security and as called forth under the control of the President of the United States; when acting in its office's capacity as Commander in Chief. And this, as insuring the federal military of the United States of America was to be restricted in size, enough to preclude oppression of the several states during times of peace.

The people themselves, in conjunction with state cooperation, seen as a more likely alliance than the people allying with the federal government vs. a rogue state, in order to protect themselves from the hostile foreign governments overpowering them with the threat of their standing army; like Great Britain did when King George III sent his battalion to America. Thus, the several states were encouraged to constitute an aggregate militia of at least 500,000 people toward protection of the general welfare.

- - - - - -

Historical Background on Second Amendment: Tasked with "digesting the many proposals for amendments made by the various state ratification conventions and stewarding them through the First Federal Congress," James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as follows:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The committee of the House of Representatives that considered Madison’s formulation altered the order of the clauses such that the militia clause now came first, with a new specification of the militia as "composed of the body of the people," and made several other wording and punctuation changes.

Debate in the House largely centered on the proposed Amendment’s religious-objector clause, with Elbridge Gerry, for instance, arguing that the clause would give "the people in power" the ability to "declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms." Gerry proposed that the provision "be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms," but his proposed addition was not accepted.

Other proposals not accepted included striking out the entire clause, making it subject to "paying an equivalent," which Roger Sherman found problematic given religious objectors would be "equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent," and adding after "a well regulated militia" the phrase "trained to arms," which Elbridge Gerry believed would make clear that it was "the duty of the Government" to provide the referenced security of a free State.

As resolved by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789, the version of the Second Amendment sent to the Senate remained similar to the version initially drafted by James Madison, with one of the largest changes being the re-ordering of the first two clauses. The provision at that time read:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The Amendment would take what would become its final form in the Senate, where the religious-objector clause was finally removed and several other phrases were modified.  For instance, the phrase referencing the militia as "composed of the body of the People" was struck, and the descriptor of the militia as "the best security of a free State" was modified to "necessary to the security of a free State." 

Several other changes were proposed and rejected, including adding limitations on a standing army "in time of peace" and adding next to the words "bear arms" the phrase "for the common defence." The final language of the Second Amendment was agreed to and transmitted to the states in late September of 1789.

[confused2]

Could be George III or wee wee wee the people. If you don't have a "This little pig went to market.." nursery rhyme substitute 'oink' for 'wee'.

[C C]

In Biden's defense (those video snippets of him), maybe deer hunters and their arguments complaints are the only anti-ban dissidents and superficial counter-propaganda that his particular plastic bubble allows him to be exposed to.