The Shark Tank
Ted Yoho

The 2nd Amendment Is Not Just for Hunting

By Javier Manjarres

Ted YohoDepending on who you ask, are likely hear many different and novel interpretations of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Anti-gun advocates will tell you that Americans have the right to have a firearm, but only ‘some’ firearms. Pro-gun supporters will tell you Americans should be able to have access to ‘all’ types of firearms, including sniper rifles, semi-automatic tactical rifles, grenade launchers, etc.

So what exactly type of firearm does the 2nd Amendment really allow?

The text of the second amendment reads as follows-

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. – Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Florida Congressman Ted Yoho recently gave his answer to the question of what types of guns citizens should be allowed to own- an answer that got the progressives and anti-gun lobby all bent out of shape. Is Yoho’s point defensible?

 The militia  had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government. I think its more important today than ever, that we uphold our second amendment. – Congressman Ted Yoho (Video)

 Congressman Justin Amash questioned those who believe the 2nd Amendment was about hunting- 





And then we have the most ridiculous and ignorant historical statement on the issue, from one of the most liberal Hollywood mouthpieces, Danny Gover, who said the 2nd Amendment was in place “for settlers to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native Americans”-

I don’t know if people know the genesis of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect, for settlers to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native Americans. So, a revolt from people who were stolen from their lands or revolts from people whose land was stolen from. That was the genesis of the Second Amendment.-Danny Glover (Source)

The fact about the 2nd Amendment is that it gives people the right to bear arms. It doesn’t specify what kind of arms, but one can safely come to the conclusion that when it was written, the amendment supported the right to bear any and all weapons “necessary to the security of a free state.” 

About author

Javier Manjarres

As the managing editor of The Shark Tank, Javier was awarded the 2011 CPAC Blogger of the Year. Countless videos and articles from the Shark Tank have been featured on Fox News, The Hill, Wall Street Journal, and other national news publications. Javier has also appeared on Univision’s “Al Punto” and numerous radio shows, including being the weekly 92.5 Fox News' DayBreak with Drew Steele political contributor

Related Articles


  1. Mike Hathaway February 5, 2013 at 8:10 am

    The Founding Fathers understood tyranny far better than most of us do today.

    As the Founders drafted the Constitution, they were very careful to impose a system of checks and balances. We have three equal branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, each with their respective powers and counters to the others, for example.

    The Bill of Rights imposes strict limits on the government. It is the counter-balance of the People vs. the Government. The intent of the Bill of Rights is to insure that the People retain the ability to control the government.

    Each of the original 10 Amendments were born of the abuses of the Crown and first-hand knowledge of what it took to throw off tyranny – the ability to freely exchange ideas and report events, the facility of arms to fight when necessary, the protections of one’s person and effects, etc.

    There was a huge debate among the Founders about the evils of a standing army, which at that time were made up of men who were completely dependent on the Crown for their sustenance (are you seeing the dangers of 47% entitlement dependency) and who had no problem committing whatever atrocity they were ordered. Nonetheless, it was recognized that a standing military would be inevitable – THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS THE COUNTER-BALANCE TO THE INEVITABILITY OF A STANDING MILITARY FORCE. Every infringement to the 2nd Amendment threatens our Freedom!

    • Mike Hathaway February 5, 2013 at 8:13 am

      When someone asks me why anyone needs an “assault rifle”, I tell them about their civic duty.

      “The militia” is now and always has been defined and codified as the citizenry in general.

  2. Bill February 5, 2013 at 8:41 am


  3. Perseids February 5, 2013 at 10:14 am

    Ted Yoho may be one of a small handful swimming in the beltway sewer who actually understand the meaning of the 2nd. Being charitable, there may be enough of our “servants” in the DC cesspool to count on your fingers and toes who really understand the meaning of our Constitution.

    One can be sure that hunting was never considered when the 2nd was crafted.

    Dr. Franklin put it a concise unequivocal manner when he stated in response to a query regarding the type of Government the Constitutional Convention had formed, “A Republic, if you can keep it”.

    We were given the 2nd to defend our Liberty against tyranny. Period.


  4. andrew spark February 5, 2013 at 10:53 am

    The article and comment by Mike are actually far more restrictive against gun ownership than what the Second Amendment states and as the Supreme Court has ruled the Amendment states the Heller decision.

    Its the right of the “people” to bear arms. It is an individual right, not dependent upon membership in a militia, formal or otherwise. The first clause about a militia provides the justification, essentially stating that “since the state will have a well-regulated militia.” The remainder of the amendment basically states, “individuals have the right to defend themselves against the potentially tyrannical militias.” It was a given at the time that individuals would need to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical central government, too.

    • Mike Hathaway February 5, 2013 at 4:12 pm

      First, nothing in either the article or in my comments above presume that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective, and not an individual right – just to be clear. Frankly, without an individual right, there is NO collective right – so any argument that the 2nd Amendment was ever meant as a collective right is meaningless nonsense.

      Second, “potentially tyrannical militias” were not something that the Founding Fathers spoke of in their writings (to my knowledge anyway, any citations to the contrary would be welcome). The concern of the Founding Fathers, as stated repeatedly by their writings was that our government might become tyrannical, oppressive and irresponsible to the will of the people – and the Founders realized from their own experience that if that were to happen again, that remedies such as a vote, or legal actions, would be futile and that only if the people were armed could they effectively overthrow tyranny.

      At the time of the Revolutionary War, the patriot militia was equally, and sometimes even better, armed than the British soldiers – a fact that offset to some degree the lack of military discipline (training), numbers on the field, and tactics.

    • John G Henke February 5, 2013 at 5:15 pm

      Man, you hit that nail on the head. The Second Amendment establishes the militia but arms the people to be part of as well as protect themselves from said militia and government.

  5. John G Henke February 5, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    “So what exactly type of firearm does the 2nd Amendment really allow?” Wrong question.

    What the Second Amendment does is PROHBIT government from infringing on our Right to keep and bear arms. This issue, like practicing the religion of our choice or criticizing government is a right, not a privilege and definitely not something we do only if government says it’s all right to do it.

    We don’t buy permits to attend a church, or any other place of worship. How would people react if you wanted to go to a Catholic church but first you had to get a Catholic Church permit to do it? Or you wanted to convert to Islam but first you had to pass a government test and background check? People would howl about how stupid and ridiculous it was and how the First Amendment says what it says, and yet the Second Amendment somehow doesn’t say what it says. It’s one damned sentence folks!

    Our Founders showed their true genius by using the word “infringe”. They knew if they had used words like prohibit or outlaw, they would have opened the door for all sorts of infringement. The government has absolutely no authority concerning the weapons we choose to carry and keep for our own protection. All gun control so-called laws are illegal and any enforcement action is a criminal act by the “authorities” against the American people. And the primary reason for our Second Amendment is so the people of America will always have a credible ability to overthrow the government by force. All other reasons are secondary.

    “So what exactly type of firearm does the 2nd Amendment really allow?” Any kind you want, that’s what kind.

    • Mike Hathaway February 5, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      Very well put, John. Amazingly, we have grown far too tolerant of all kinds of infringements on our Constitutional rights – the intrusive searches and being disarmed when we travel by air comes immediately to mind.

      Every encroachment begins with a seemingly righteous desire – public protection, etc. – but the end result is always the same, less Freedom.

    • andrew spark February 5, 2013 at 8:51 pm


      While I’m a strong supporter of the right to bear arms, including effective arms that can kill a lot of people at a time if need be, I don’t agree that the right is unlimited. The Second Amendment says “the right” to bear arms shall not be infringed, not that there is an uninfringeable right to bear whatever arms one wants at any time, and the Heller decision discusses this, accurately in my opinion.

      • Mike Hathaway February 6, 2013 at 7:59 am

        Andrew, just how do you define “infringe” in your world. Yes, we all know the Heller decision. Nonetheless, any limit is in fact an infringement, by definition. The Heller decision, while welcome, borders on absurdity when interpreted to enable more regulations than we already have. The Court stopped short of overturning current federal laws – for example, restricting the sales of full-auto weapons.

        The Heller decision confirms that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right – but the references to allow current restrictions are not particularly congruent with the plain language of the 2nd Amendment.

        Saying you support the 2nd Amendment but with limitations is like saying you support our soldiers, but want to cut their salaries and reduce their equipment. In your case, it seems an obvious and sad attempt to pander – it may work in the intellectually lazy liberal circles, but I’m pretty sure most conservatives see right through it.

  6. Mike Hathaway February 5, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    When you drill down on the people who are actually committing the day to day gun crimes, there are certain influence elements that are consistent in the lives of the perpetrators. These influence elements are children of unwed/divorced mothers, no active fathers, welfare dependency, poor education and rap/gangster culture.

    It’s bad enough that we ignore the real source of the problems – what’s worse is that each of these influence elements are engendered and promulgated by the “social” policies championed by liberals.

    Whenever I hear someone say they like the Democrat party for where they are on “social issues”, now you know exactly what that means!

    • John G Henke February 5, 2013 at 7:23 pm

      The attempts to nullify the Second Amendment are in the name of addressing a symptom not a problem. But in fact are in the name of establishing totalitarian dictatorship over America, presently made impossible by armed citizens.