Some ruminations on gun-grabber silliness

I just saw an op-ed piece at the NYTimes with a common bit of gun grabber silliness. This particular opinion column had the formulaic I’m-a-hunter-but anti-gun construction that NYC liberals like to see. I guess it helps them to convince themselves that they aren’t the anti-Red-state bigots they really are. But I digress…

The writer proudly proclaimed that as a hunter and sportswoman, she doesn’t own guns for self defense. The implication here is that a gun is unsuitable for private ownership if it cannot be used for some sporting activity. To believe this, however, we must then believe that the Founders meant to protect a right to keep and bear sporting goods with a Constitutional amendment. This is as silly as saying that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the National Guard that wouldn’t exist for another century or so.

Adding to the goofiness is the author’s belief that if your handguns are confiscated, she’ll still be allowed her hunting rifle. Sorry sweet cheeks, but that “sniper rifle”of yours will have to go too.