Gun rights: Of rights, needs and 'sporting purposes'

Let us ignore all that, and further, let's ignore the fact that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are not called the "Bill of Needs." In other words, let's accept for now the dubious assertion that not only do we not need these things, but that our lack of such a need justifies Congress banning them.

So, then, how does one square bans justified by a lack of "need," with other gun bans based on lack of sporting use? No one, after all, needs sports, which perhaps explains why the Second Amendment is silent about the "right to keep and bear sporting goods."

Gun ban extremists like Feinstein, Lautenberg and McCarthy would ban guns that (they claim) we don't "need." They also claim the authority to ban guns that (again, they claim) are not suitable for purposes more frivolous than need. What does that leave? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.