The NRA continues to pick and choice the parts of the Constitution that furthers their agenda. When NRA members stockpile assault weapons, the mantra of the "right to bear arms" is wailed ad nausea. I could be misinterpreted this provision, but I believe the founding fathers were concerned about invading armies. They also used their "arms" to hunt for their dinner.
In parts of our country, hunting and simply shooting weapons are sacred pastimes. Do you need an automatic assault weapon to kill Bambi? We do have supermarkets to "hunt" for our food.
Last year I attended an "advisory board retreat" for a not-for-profit supermarket. One of the members brought several automatic weapons. He spent two days soliciting members to shoot these weapons. One member finally succumbed. As he was loading up the weapons on all-terrain vehicle, his excitment was frighteningly palatable. Holding those weapons was more effective than an entire bottle of Viagra.
Jim Zumbo, hunting activist, now former writer for the magazine Outdoor Life, is not entitled to exercise his Constitutional right of "free speech." He made the fatal mistake of referring to assault weapons as "terrorist rifles". Six thousand very angry letters to the magazine later, he tendered his resignation. These, no doubt, are the same folks who continue to give Shrub favorable ratings.
Just like you can't pick and chose parts of the bible to drive home a point, the same rules apply to the Constitution. Our country has become so polarized that by challenging the "norm" rattles our citizens sensibilities. Maybe those screaming the loudest, should spend time reading the entire document.