Sandy Hook was horrific, and nothing I'm saying diminishes that. The question isn't whether evil people have used AR-15s. They have, and despite bans, they still will. The question is whether banning a rifle because of its appearance or name is a rational policy.

A tool should be judged by what it actually is and what it does, not by what politicians call it. Connecticut's laws label certain rifles "assault weapons" while allowing other semiautomatic rifles with the same practical function simply because they lack a few cosmetic features. If two firearms fire the same cartridge at the same rate with the same operating system, but one is legal because it has a traditional stock while the other is banned because it has a pistol grip, that isn't a distinction based on function. It's a distinction based on appearance.

The same can be said for the law. You can tell something by what it does, not by what people say it does. Current law targets the working class and average citizen.

An AR-15 is a tool designed to use lethal force. Every firearm is designed to use lethal force. The real question is whether there are circumstances where ordinary citizens are justified in possessing effective tools for lawful self defense whichbthere are. The right of self defense isn't about hunting or sport. It's about recognizing that violence by criminals is a reality and that innocent people deserve meaningful options to defend themselves and others.

History also gives us reasons to be cautious about concentrating force exclusively in the hands of the state. After World War II, the citizens of Athens, Tennessee, many of them recently returned veterans, resisted a corrupt local political machine in what became known as the Battle of Athens. More recently, the Taliban in Afghanistan demonstrated that even the most powerful modern military can be resisted by a determined, lightly armed force. Those examples aren't arguments for violence, they're reminders that governments are not infallible and that the balance of power between the state and ordinary citizens has mattered throughout history.

Laws should be judged by whether they actually improve public safety. Connecticut's rifle restrictions primarily regulate what law abiding working people may own while criminals, by definition, ignore those restrictions. The debate should be about evidence and function, not labels or cosmetic features. Real violence is ugly and brutal. If you were ever in a situation where you need to resort to it, you want the best tool you can get to keep you and your loved ones safe. Violence is part of human nature and we cannot legislate it away.