The last line struck me though. Why should there be anything to prevent people from buying guns with an Amendment which expressly give this right?
The fact that this word was even used is disturbing to me.
I really think you can read that both ways, especially in the context of the article, which I found refreshingly balanced.
It is true that there is nothing to prevent people from legally stocking up on guns and ammunition and that is their right as citizens, as explicitly recognized (not granted, mind you, but observed) in our Constitution.
In any event, such discussion is far better than what passes for discourse about firearms in most of the mainstream media, where violence is routinely blamed on inert tools rather than on the people who promulgate it.
It makes one wonder how the author would describe my 5,000 book library. Am I "stockpiling" books?
(the 500+ books on firearms & military hardware would probably give him pause...)