Gun Rights Lesson #918 – Semi-Automatic Weapons

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is one of a series of articles on gun rights. Each addresses a common anti-gun trope.

“You don’t need a semi-automatic rifle for hunting!”

This argument, which is intended to impose further limits on the types of firearms civilians are permitted to own (there are already restrictions against full-auto, against too-short barrels, against suppressors, and, locally, against “black guns,” against higher capacity magazines, against certain calibers, et al), is a rather insidious one. It lures us into arguing the right to bear arms on the opponent’s turf and terms, and thus traps us into arguing about something that’s an irrelevance.

Sure, we can get deep in the weeds as to whether there’s a benefit to using a semi-automatic rifle instead of a manual-action rifle (e.g. bolt-, lever-, pump-, break-). Sure, we can argue that it’s more humane to be able to quickly put a second shot on a deer or other animal should the first shot inflict a non-mortal wound. Sure, we can argue that, if we miss with the first shot, we stand a much better chance of hitting with the second shot if we don’t have to cycle the rifle’s action manually. And, sure, we can argue that “it’s none of your [redacted] business what type of rifle I hunt with!”

But, what’s the point? The right to bear arms is itself born out of our inherent self-ownership and the concomitant right to defend ourselves. The Second Amendment affirms that right, and further asserts that the right includes defense against a tyrannical state. The word “hunting” appears nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and to argue about the mechanical aspects of firearms used for hunting is not an argument about gun rights or whether limits on those rights are legitimate.

The folks who put forth this argument probably haven’t thought too deeply about the gamesmanship. Far more likely – they (and many of them aren’t hunters, and many of them don’t know the difference between a lever-action, a semi-auto, and a full-auto gun) are simply throwing a trope they heard elsewhere up as part of a “lets see what sticks” scattergun (pun intended) attack on your gun rights. The proper response isn’t to take the bait and make pro-semi-auto arguments. Those arguments exist, but if you go down that path, you enable arguments about limits based on functionality and utility. You grant the anti-gunner the right to challenge your gun rights based on how useful a particular mechanism or feature or style or configuration is in a particular situation. If you fail to prove robustly that AR-15s are necessary for hunting, you’ve ceded ground unnecessarily. To repeat – your inalienable gun rights have nothing to do with hunting.

Does that mean that hunting itself is an irrelevance, or bannable? Hardly. Apart from another fundamental aspect of your self-ownership – the right to feed yourself – there is the practical reality that deer populations in much of the United States, if not culled by hunters, will grow to the point where population pressures will lead to disease, starvation, and encroachment on populated areas. That argument has nothing to do with the form of firearm you use to hunt, either.

So,

Gun rights lesson #918: Don’t fall for this bit of misdirection. Neither the Second Amendment nor your right to bear arms has anything to do hunting.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.