I can understand, barely, that firing a pistol at a target in a shooting range might be of some interest, though a bow and arrow would be more of a challenge. What will be next, "hobbyists" tossing hand grenades?
If I want to, yes. If it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then it's an implied right.
Just because the author can't "understand" it, it must be passe and distasteful. This is typical elitist liberal gibberish, which generally translates as, "I find it unpleasant; therefore it must be wrong. Having established that I find it to be wrong, the government must step in and enact legislation to make sure everyone's forced to agree with me." Heap on some hysterical hand-wringing, skip any research, and you've got the liberal modus operandi in a nutshell.
I see the author offering absolutely no research or evidence to support his claims. If I thought a mature, adult conversation with no raised voices were possible with him, perhaps I'd try to engage in debate. From what I've learned however, his response would be, "Psychotic Gun Nut Redneck Erik F. suggests that everyone should be forced to carry around fully-loaded AK-47s," or something to that effect.
We all know the facts. The problem is getting them heard in calm, rational debate. With all the stereotyping, screaming and emotional hysterics
on both sides, it's no wonder the average moderate American has no clue what to think on the gun debate. Granted, ours doesn't tend to assume that we're the arbiters of national taste and decency, but c'mon...are guys like Ted Nugent and Charlton Heston REALLY the ones we want representing our side of the debate?
