Oh, that's easy to answer. She doesn't really support the 2nd Amendment, except perhaps shallowly. Very shallowly.
You see, she is totally willing to have Obama and his fedgov goons take a nice chunk of your production under threat of force, up to and including lethal force if you try to prevent the seizure.
She's totally willing to have guns pointed in your face by her preferred elected representatives. And, she'll throw you a bone--the 2A. But don't think about advocating using it against her chosen gun-pointing, lethal threatening, looting expropriators.
Moreover, if you just wait a while, she'll come along and justify how she has standing to elect those expropriators to loot you for the benefit of millions of people you've never even met. Meaning, its not whether she can cook up good-sounding justifications; it is that she thinks she has standing at all to tell other people to whom they must bow down and accept being looted.
Of course, she has it all worked out and totally justified in her mind. But, the key point is that she is of the opinion that she is so close to being a god that she can hold you responsible for others. And, of course, her version of responsibility is blame and force and cram it down your throat (at gun point), and make you do it you nasty little man. Because that's how she was treated, and how she treats herself (see her recent thread about leaving a gun at a daycare center or something, where she turned forgetfulness into negligence.) Her highest understanding of responsibility--socially--is mainly blaming others: for either causing something she doesn't approve, or not causing something she thinks they should have. If she ever thinks about responsibility as just assigning causation or agency for an occurrence without all the heavy implications of blame, its probably pretty rarely applied to society.
