AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

It’s almost amusing how members of Congress fancy themselves as experts on everything. No matter the topic, they seem to think they know more than everyone else. After all, few of them talk to legitimate experts on the subject before having an opinion. Instead, they reflect whatever opinion their party shares.

Take guns, for example. They routinely tell people what they need and don’t need for self-defense, despite having pretty much no knowledge of self-defense. This is the party of Joe “Shoot ’em through the door” Biden, right?

The latest example is noted anti-gunner Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who tweeted this gem over the weekend:

Let’s break this down step by step, shall we?

“Nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt.”

Well, that depends on what you’re hunting, doesn’t it? The AR-15 is a preferred weapon for hunting animals like coyote because of a quick cycling time and ammo capacity. I sure wouldn’t want to hunt a predatory pack animal that’s generally not traveling alone. Coyotes cost farmers plenty of money each year and are an invasive species in many parts of the country.

Further, while I wouldn’t use an AR-15 for hunting hog, I’d use an AR-10, its .308 cousin. Hogs are dangerous, and if you don’t hit it right, they’ll charge you. I’ve known many a hunter who found themselves treed from an angry hog. In a case like that, I want that round capacity and semi-auto action.

So yeah, we need them to hunt.

“Nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle to defend their home,” Murphy says.

Really? We’ve documented several attacks where the homeowner was able to defend their home because they had an AR-15 or similar rifle.

Look, is it the best choice for home defense? I generally say it’s not, but it is a viable home defense option. Especially if you find yourself dealing with multiple attackers. Think about the mob that attacked Tucker Carlson’s home, for example. What if they’d have gained entry into the home and attacked Carlson’s wife?

An AR-15 would have been ideal in that situation, more so than any handgun.

So yeah, we need them for home defense.

“But mass shooters NEED these weapons in order to murder as many people as efficiently as possible,” he continues.

The most lethal school shooting on American soil is still the Virginia Tech massacre. The killer in that attack used two semi-automatic handguns.

The Santa Fe High School shooter from last year used a shotgun and pistol.

The Brazilian school shooter used a revolver and archery equipment, for crying out loud.

Mass shooters existed before AR-15s were common. They’ll be around even if you get rid of the AR-15. They’ll still be extremely lethal, too. Stop blaming the tool and start blaming the tool holding it.

“And so nobody will miss them when they are illegal – except for the killers.”

Well, I am going to sure as hell miss mine. What are you trying to say, Sen. Murphy, because I sure as hell resent the implication.

The AR-15 is the most popular model of firearm in the United States today. It became that way because of Democrats and their drive to ban so-called assault rifles. I suspect the vast majority of those people would miss them if they were made illegal. Is Sen. Murphy saying we’re all just killers?

It would certainly fit much of the anti-gun rhetoric, especially the idea that the mere presence of a gun reflects an inherent danger to all around. That’s an idea that’s mostly projection, from what we’ve seen.

Yet the only violence being advocated is from anti-gun zealots who support people like Sen. Murphy.

Look, it’s time for people like Murphy to quit with the tough talk. They don’t have the votes to make a total assault weapon ban happen, even if they wanted to. They’re just talking tough because they know they won’t have to back it up.

A total ban on AR-15s and similar weapons wouldn’t have the effect they like to think. Instead, it’ll turn a whole lot of people into criminals overnight. We’re not interested in playing nice with people who want to disarm us and treat us like criminals. You know, people like Sen. Chris Murphy.