I think several of you are correct that Boxer represents the views of her constituents perfectly. I also think it is appropriate for her to say she isn't changing her mind about this issue. Her views on this issue have kept her in office for years and years. If we elected someone based on pro-2A views and they changed their mind after a few letters, we would scream and howl "traitor" and crucify her at every opportunity, and rightly so.
You are quite right about Boxer's and her constituent's views, but the problem is that those views run contrary to the Constitution. She needs to be crucified(not literally) and labeled a traitor for that reason alone, and only because she acts in line with those views even though she knows they are contrary to the Constitution.
There are law abiders and law breachers. It is clear the majority of her constituents are of the same cloth as she, for she campaigned on an agenda to breach the Constitution - actually
told the people who would elect her that she would breach the Constitution. Giving her constituents the benefit of ignorance of what the Constitution limits her to, I must place all the disrespect deserved in this situation on her.
Now, if she was honest and campaigned to amend the Constitution so that it would embrace her views, I would actually respect her. I doubt she'd get elected to that end, but you never know. I can respect honesty, but not duplicity.
As for the people who post comments here, yes, respect is in order. Regardless of their views, unless they are in a position to enact upon those views if contrary to the Constitution, respect is deserved and shall not be diminished other than by their own low valued manor.
That said, it isn't about disrespecting those who insult, besmirch, and debase. It's about disregarding them.
Woody