That assertion not only misrepresents constitutional history — it betrays the very purpose of the Second Amendment itself.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Case argued that “machine guns are not the kind of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” citing their lethality and suitability for crime.

But this reasoning ignores the historical foundation of the Second Amendment, which was never about sporting use, hunting, or home defense alone.

The Founding Fathers did not view the right to keep and bear arms as a gift from government — they viewed it as a safeguard against government.

In the late 18th century, the arms protected by the Second Amendment were the same weapons used by the military.

If the Second Amendment only protects outdated or low-grade firearms, it becomes a right without teeth, and a check on tyranny in theory only.

Technology evolves, but rights do not.

If the government has access to select-fire rifles, body armor, and drones, and the people are restricted to revolvers and bolt-action hunting rifles, the intended balance of power has already been lost.

This is not a radical concept.

When the DOJ draws an arbitrary line — saying that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are protected, but fully automatic firearms are not — it is engaging in the very sort of governmental overreach the Second Amendment was ratified to prevent.

The DOJ’s statement represents a constitutional cliff — one that, if unchallenged, could be used to justify broader restrictions in the future.

Should the government determine which tools are too dangerous for citizens — while simultaneously arming itself with those very tools?

The Second Amendment was not designed to give the government that authority.

And if a law-abiding American can afford a machine gun, the federal government has no business stripping them of that right.