A small but pointed question in re Ja Morant

For those of you who do not follow pro basketball... Ja Morant is the young star point guard for the Memphis Grizzlies. He's one of the 20 to 30 best basketball players on the planet (maybe), and fun as hell to watch due to astounding athleticism. 

He's also on personal leave in the aftermath of a leaked video from a strip club where he's seen handling a not terribly large gun. He might not play basketball again this year because of this, and seems to have accepted the idea that he needs therapy, and new ways to spend his time outside of sports. I suspect he's going to lose some endorsements, and Memphis, which had significant playoff hopes this year, may go down without their best player while this all gets sorted out.

Now, I don't particularly have an issue with this, though the unseemliness of media on What It All Means is a bit much. Long-time readers of the blog know my issues of Game and Not Game, as well as an earned suspicion of what Big Mouse sells as content. (Basically, it's got more than a little in common, in terms of reasons to doubt veracity, with Rupert Murdoch-owned properties. Moving on.)

But I do have one very large question...

Why isn't the NRA, and all of the other pro-2nd Amendment absolutists, telling everyone to leave Morant alone? Where are the protestors demanding to know why Morant doesn't have the right to constitutionally carry whatever makes him happy? 

Look at that photo on the right again. He's clearly happy.

(crickets)

Why, it's almost as if the 2nd Amendment is only a good and noble right that must be protected above and beyond all measures of sanity and common sense if the carrier of the weapon is... is... is...

Dammit, I forgot what Morant is. 

Besides a basketball player.

(crickets)

Justin Verlander? Aaron Rodgers? 

Mind taking a Colt 45 into a honkey tonk bar and giving us a data point or two?