Hunting is not a Right Peter Shumlin, Peter Welch, Bernie Sanders, and Patrick Leahy have two things

in common (other than being supported by Vermont and American taxpayers). All four have publicly assured their constituencies that they are profoundly supportive of hunting and just as profoundly opposed to the possession by citizens of firearms specifically designed for defense against human aggression. Certain guns are bad and should be outlawed because they are not suitable for hunting. Surprise! There is no constitutional guarantee of hunting rights. Defenders of hunting can point to many benefits to hunters and the communities they live in. Wildlife management for one, healthy outdoor recreation for another, and the idea that government should not restrict us unnecessarily in the ways we choose to live. Jefferson called this the pursuit of happiness. But the Second Amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. What it addresses is the right of the people to keep and bear arms for protection against aggression, both foreign and domestic. Some would argue that we no longer need to protect ourselves as individuals because we have the protection of the state. Really? Then why did the writers of the Federalist papers, in support of the draft Constitution, argue that the American people need not fear their government because, unlike Europeans, Americans are armed. After more than 200 years those words are just as true today. Interestingly most who argue against such things as assault weapons, and high capacity magazines are woefully ill informed about the objects of their hatred. One commentator on NPR recently argued that so-called assault weapons are derived from military weapons and are therefore things that need to be kept out of the hands of the general public. Apparently he was unaware that Col. Samuel Colts early weapons, the antecedents of todays revolvers, bore names like 1851 Navy and 1860 Army and were produced under military contracts before the Civil War. Nor did he understand that the precursor of almost all modern bolt action sporting rifles was the World War I German Mauser military rifle. For some strange reason, the favorite target of the anti-gun lobby is the handgun. This is really odd since handguns, aside from sporting uses, are primarily defensive weapons. Wars are not waged with handguns nor do SWAT teams charge into dangerous situations waving pistols. So what about pistol magazines carrying 13 rounds instead of 10? Ask the police who use them. They carry sidearms, not

because they anticipate getting into gunfights, but as protection against the rare case when they face an armed assailant. Why do they have the right to this extra edge of personal security while the taxpayers that pay them do not? Then there is the argument that only with semiautomatic rifles equipped with high capacity magazines can a crazed killer destroy the lives of a dozen or more people. The same horrendous result can be produced with glass jars of gasoline equipped with burning fuses. Who has not heard of the infamous Molotov cocktail? Shall we also restrict the sale of gasoline ? A number of years ago, a crazed killer vented his frustration by deliberately driving an automobile onto a crowded sidewalk in Westwood, California killing and crippling a large number of pedestrians. That sidewalk could easily have been a schoolyard. Perhaps we need to restrict the sale and possession of automobiles as well, especially those capable of speeds far in excess of 120 miles per hour. Are these the automotive equivalent of the high-capacity magazine? We read that in many countries, notably Japan, gun violence is almost unheard of. In America, in contrast, a man who was trained by the Marines to shoot a rifle at one point below the expert level, killed President John F. Kennedy with a shot to the head. He used a military weapon purchased from a mail order dealer. Days later he was himself killed by a nightclub owner who saw himself as a patriot punishing an enemy of his country. Both shooters would have been qualified to purchase similar weapons under todays laws and even under the far more restrictive laws being urged by our Governor and all three of our legislative representatives in Washington. In Japan, by way of contrast, members of a cult released deadly Sarin gas on the Tokyo subway during rush hour killing some victims and sickening hundreds more. Not long after this, a key member of the cult was standing on the street being interviewed on television when a Yakuza (Japanese gangster) pushed through the crowd and ripped the cult leaders stomach open with a razor sharp knife. No firearms necessary in either case. The NRA has said that all schools should have Federally mandated and financed armed security. This too is ridiculous. It is the Federal Government itself that, by law, makes all schools into gun-free zones. This law should be repealed and local schools and parents should themselves decide what best protects the children.

Governor Shumlins argument that the presence of arms on school grounds turns schools into fortresses is equally absurd. When we go to court to answer a summons or to file some legal papers, we must first pass through a metal detector and empty our pockets for inspection by an armed officer. If we go to the ER in St. Johnsbury, we are likely to see an armed officer in attendance. Can anyone explain why hospital personnel, doctors, judges, and courthouse staff need armed security but children do not? The Second Amendment is one of the most important protections we have and neither Governor Shumlin nor any of our representatives in Washington would have the nerve to suggest repeal. Instead they argue for unconstitutional laws that would cut the legs out from under it. They need to be stopped. Robert Patton Lyndon Center