Because legislators, being only human, can only know so much about any given topic. They may in some cases be experts in limited areas, but it is impossible to be an expert in everything. It is up to those who are experts in the general public to make their expertise available. If folks in favor of gun rights don't, you can bet that the Brady Bunch will fill their ears with good-sounding but bogus "information".
You can vote for her if you’re predisposed to. I just happen to think that knowing something about the Second Amendment of our most basic document of governance is not ‘specialization’, nor does it require extraordinary study. This is a basic right, granted to us (along with other unalienable rights like freedom by God) and reinforced and elaborated on by the founders in this document. It isn’t rocket science. There isn’t much to wonder about the phrase “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....” Any other explanation for this is just explaining away a tendency to RINOism.
That's ridiculous. The problem is not that she was lacking in knowledge of factual minutiae about guns or gun control. The 2nd Amendment is 26 words long, and that's all she needs to know about it. If her instincts are to yield additional power and authority to the government at the expense of the individual, that's 180 degrees off of what the Constitution says, and what the Tea Party movement is about.
And if it's unreasonable to expect would-be "legislators" to know even the Bill of Rights, what on earth SHOULD they know?