While I vehemently disagree with him on this issue, I do appreciate that he is (or at least appears to be) a guy who would welcome a debate on the issue. That’s a huge step up from the attitude of “if you disagree with me, then you don’t get to speak.” People are going to have different opinions, there’s no getting around that fact. And, they are free to have them, even if they are wrong and/or I disagree with them. Having different opinions but being able to speak them openly is what freedom is all about. So whether or not I agree with him on this issue, which I don’t, the constitutional and healthy approach is a fair and open debate on the issue. He is open to that at face value. From there, his opinion can be proven incorrect fairly easily. But it’s the idea of even having the debate in the first place, and not being silenced, which is most important in this context. I’m not saying that the 2nd amendment doesn’t matter, either. I’m saying that the first amendment is the guardian of all subsequent ones. If it’s destroyed, then the others will be. If it’s preserved, the others will be. So anyone who is an actual supporter of the first amendment, I can deal with.