Probably because that is why the 2nd Amendment is there. So citizens can have the means to defend against JoBama's tyrannical government.
Probably because that is why the 2nd Amendment is there. So citizens can have the means to defend against... tyrannical government.
~~~
Almost everyone who studies the founding agrees that this was the spirit of the 2nd amendment. That the people have the right to rebel against tyranny just like they did against the crown.
But I would still ask the question, and maybe I would clarify it a little better; Why would the President even take up an argument against the people being able to defend themselves SPECIFICALLY if it’s in the context of the 2nd amendment being there for the defense of citizens against tyranny?
In other words, isn’t that like him admitting that they want to disarm the populace for ultimate uncontested control over them, and they may as well just submit to that because they don’t have military aircraft?