Rednecks say that guns are not about hunting or even self defence, but are about resisting tyrannical governments.
And of course this is hilarious – what reasonable person would imagine at this stage here in the 21st Century that the American government would ever become tyrannical and start arbitrarily murdering its citizens.
Ahem.
What do our Progressive friends have to say on this matter?
Well they say that no matter how well-armed a citizen you are, you would never be able to defeat agents of the State, so claiming that you need an AR-15 for that purpose is a frivolous defence, even if it was accepted that tyrannical government was even a remote possibility.
But wait a minute – don’t our Progressive friends describe such weapons as “weapons of war” and claim that if you have them you are essentially a soldier and can’t claim to be a hunter or a sports shooter?
Why yes, they do.
It’s a puzzle, for sure.
On the one had, “assault rifles” won’t help you if soldiers come to your door, and on the other hand, “assault rifles” make you a soldier.
In any case, if lightly-armed civilians can’t defeat the might of the American government, how did the U.S ever lose Vietnam?
Surely our Progressive friends need to pick a lane – either “assault rifles” make you a soldier, able to resist tyrannical government agents (and therefore claiming you own one for this reason is perfectly justifiable), or they don’t. In which case they are owned for sports and hunting purposes.
So……….which is it?
Sure, nobody can defeat the state individually, but collectively they could mount a pretty good resistance when armed. How secure would Maduro be feeling right now if half the population had an AR15 tucked under the bed?