Obviously, given her viewpoint, she was using this as a scare tactic.
“If you rule the 2nd as an individual right, everyone will have machine guns!!”
On our side, we’re saying “cool”.
But to a leftist, this is as outrageous as speaking the truth about a minority culture or about Islam - they find it shocking.
Not necessarily saying this will cause a firestorm across the nation, striking down gun laws, but how much would a new M4A1, or M-16 go for, or maybe an M60?
On the other side of the aisle, how much would an AR-15 go for, if they’re still produced?
I don't think it was a tactic. I think she is genuinely scared that machine guns are to be protected. Liberals know what they want but they very often also know what the rules say.
For example, Hillary wouldn't want Florida and Michigan to count for the Democrat nomination if Obama had won the votes. She knows full well what the rules were. She just wants the rules to be ignored so that she can have what she wants.
The same is true of Ginsberg. She knows what she wants but she also understands that the rules, at least as they are unfolding, are not going to let her have it. The challenge for Roberts will be to convince her that she can side with "individual right" and "strict scrutiny" and yet those nasty, icky machine guns (that nobody needs except police sargeants in L.A.) won't necessarily be protected.