Good point and answer to those who think AR-15s — or other semi-automatic weapons with 30-bullet clips and body armor — somehow are really appropriate for home defense.
I feel the OP writer made it clear that he, like many right wingers, does not mainly think about the AR-15 as a weapon for home defense, but as a good weapon to wage some kind of necessary civil war against imagined political enemies — to “keep the democrats from burning, looting and killing when they try to gain power.”
Everyone knows it is the right that is most heavily armed in this country, that looters are usually mostly unorganized criminals or vandals out to “shop for free.” Of course everyone has the right to defend life and property and their own homes when necessary. But some gun nuts now seek to become … vigilantes and political activists.
The result of such fantasies accompanied by widespread arming with assault-like weapons not only is that these weapons are ever more frequently used by nutters to kill children in schools, but they are also used by outright racists against minorities, e.g. in Churches and shopping centers. Both have special and horrifying emotional resonance. The conscious effort of some of these lunatics is to be “vanguard warriors,” to start a civil war, or a “Helter Skelter” race war. THAT is especially dangerous and disastrous to our multi-ethnic society & Republic.
Those on the right who call AR-15s a weapon “to fight Democrats” are treading on dangerous ground. It is unfortunate but guns — the AR-15 serving as a symbol — are becoming subliminal tools for intimidation and terror in our life and politics.
That doesn’t mean semi-auto weapons or the AR-15 should or can be “banned.” I can understand those who call for this after terror attacks like the recent ones in Buffalo and Uvalde, but I don’t think people or politicians who speak this way are being realistic — not in today’s U.S.A. anyway.
But there are a host of regulations, from strict registration to banning large clips, to insisting on waiting periods, to serious background checks (etc.), that are eminently reasonable and supportable under a strict originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many would even be supported by police and responsible Republicans and private gun owners.
What is NOT appropriate is irresponsible talk about needing assault weapons to defeat political (or racial) opponents.
