“I have heard this argument before, I have a few questions for you
1) we aren’t going to be able to stop the government with AR-15 s. We will need automatic weapons, tanks armed drones here etc. Do you support my right to own those? Keep in mind the 2nd amendment says “arms” it isn’t limited to guns. So why are these arms ok but not these, particularly if the rational is to stop a tyranical government?”
How is this not contradictory to other statements that you’ve said.
You said previously that although better background checks wouldn’t be able to prevent all mass shootings, most likely it should result in much fewer mass shootings.
Here, you’re suggesting that if a bunch of people have guns they won’t be able to prevent a government takeover. You’re right that they won’t be able to save the whole country, but at least they have a chance of protecting themselves.