After reading that a dozen times I still cannot fathom what the second sentence there is supposed to have to do with the first sentence.
After trying to understand the underlying philosophy for decades, I think it is this:
For about two thirds of people, they expect someone to tell them what is right and wrong. In the U.S. most of them obtain this information from their religion.
For those who reject religion, many, if not most, substitute the State. They equate legal with moral. This woman felt that she was being unfairly accused of being an idiot, because she had not done anything illegal. The whole point of the article, from her perspective, is that training must be required by the state to buy a pistol. Because if it is not illegal to buy a pistol without having a clue, the state is sending a message that it is perfectly acceptable behavior.
The key to understand this, is these people yeild are responsibility and judgement to the state.