Nothing at all, if that's really what he's saying.JasonH wrote:Which is just saying that "Even in a beautiful safe looking rural area I think people should have a gun."
What's wrong with that?
But my take on it is that he's saying that ONLY hunters, "sportsmen," (there's a well defined term for ya) and those who have a real need to protect their families (such as people who live a long (physical) way from where a 911 response would come from, never mind that city 911 responses can be as long or longer) should be allowed to have guns.
He says he "respects" the Second Amendment, which doesn't say he thinks it protects a right, much less an individual one, and then he adds "should be able" in the next sentence which pretty much says that gun ownership under his administration would be by permission.
Of course I have a tendency, garnered through long political observation, to put the absolute worst twist on anything ANY politician says, demoncrat or revoltingpublican.