“It’s debatable whether even the most stringent gun-control measures would prevent mass shootings, and it’s doubtful that those measures would survive the Roberts Court’s scrutiny. But time and time again, these proposals reveal a troubling window into the mindset of the gun-rights activists who oppose them. That, in turn, only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger. If the main reason you need an AR-15 is to murder civil servants and elected officials, you shouldn’t have it in the first place.”
Well no, that’s not quite accurate. We don’t want to own AR-15s “to murder civil servants and elected officials”, we need them to hold off government agents when they arrive at our door to disarm us — in clear violation of the Constitution (which, lest we forget, said gummint agents swore to uphold as part of their office-taking oath).
And by “hold off” I don’t necessarily mean “kill them” (it’s not murder if they attack you first, BTW, no matter what un-Constitutional law they hide behind); “holding off” also means making them a little more fearful of the consequences of their actions, and a little more reluctant to be statist bullies
Source: Um, No
