It does, but that's almost an irrelevant distraction from the consistent theme of Rust demanding things he asserts they have no right to. That is the point being made, not anything about guns.

In almost every example here you could decide that what Rust is saying is not unreasonable.

But in almost every case you could just as easily come to the conclusion he does, because his logic does hold.

(I don't mean the defend my wife & kids from terrorists at the software conference stuff is logical, we can agree that that is goofy, and that any event organizer or property owner probably (not a lawyer) has the same right to say that as they have to say "no shoes no shirt no service". But even then, that right is the event organizer's and the property owners, not the Rust foundation's unless they happen to directly be the one's throwing the event.

I would say what Rust is trying to do is more normal than reasonable. It's not uncommon at all, but that doesn't absolve it of critique.

And his point about intent is valid. The fact it's a draft and the purpose of a draft is exactly to discover objections like these, and may be revised before it's ratified, doesn't change what they want, which tells you the direction of all future updates, and the bias when judging any disputes.

Without that one wacky element which has nothing to do with Rust anyway (any more than any other wacky belief like in gods), I see no problem with this assertion of the character of whoever contributed to and approves of this draft, based on this consistently themed collection of points.