There are few in Congress that defends the Second Amendment more staunchly than Kentucky’s Rep. Thomas Massie. There may be some who match it, but few can beat him.

But Vice President Kamala Harris is on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Recently, she tweeted in support of an assault weapon ban.

That’s not shocking at all. It’s what high-ranking Democrats do in this day and age.

For Massie, though, it was an opening to drop a truth bomb.

Your body guards, and dozens of “civil” agencies like the USDA, the US Dept. of Ed., and the EPA possess the firearms you are calling weapons of war. The reality is you want every citizen disarmed and every government agency armed with these guns. https://t.co/LvAlpfVkDs

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 15, 2023

Boom.

I mean, literally everything he’s saying is true. Moreover, it brings up some pretty serious points regarding the debate over things like AR-15s.

One talking point used by gun control proponents is that these guns have no value outside of a battlefield. They’re only good for killing a lot of people very quickly and so they have no place on our streets, as Harris argued in her tweet.

Then why do agencies like the IRS, the Department of Education, and the EPA need weapons that are only good for killing a lot of people very quickly?

Massie brought them up because all of these agencies have them. They’re all equipped with the same kind of weapons and armor as a SWAT team, yet there are almost no situations where they actually need such firepower.

The few that might arise? They can get help from local law enforcement or other federal agencies. They don’t need these kinds of weapons.

Yet we get asked for a good reason why we need them.

Well, here’s the reason. Our government has armed pretty much every federal agency with weapons the head of our government claims is only good for massacring people. Since it’s pretty clear they’re not going to massacre themselves, that just leaves us.

“They need those to respond to threats!”

Do they?

The FBI, DEA, ATF, and US Marshals having these make sense if that’s the case. The Secret Service having them does, too.

But the Department of Education? What, are the kicking in the door of a drug cartel over student loans? No, they’re not.

Massie just brought up a point about these kinds of weapons that gun control fans don’t want to talk about. If there really is no purpose for these guns outside of the battlefield–which is nonsense considering no nation fields AR-15s in the first place–then why is just about every federal agency getting an arsenal of them?

While we shouldn’t have to justify our desire to own such weapons, the government does. These agencies need to explain just why they have them and what situations they believe will require them.

Our rights are enshrined in the Second Amendment. As such, we are not beholden to the government over them. We do not answer to them as to why we wish to exercise our rights, as was laid out in Bruen.

But as taxpayers, they do owe us an explanation as to why these are in the hands of so many different agencies.

Moreover, people like Harris need to stop trying to ban our access to them while handing them out to people like the EPA.