Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala,) is absolutely opposed to any new restrictions on guns — even regarding military-style assault weapons — because people need them to “take back” our government, he explained on Fox News Sunday.
Such action should only be undertaken in the event America becomes “dictatorial,” Brooks told host Sandra Smith.
Brooks absolutely, and completely baselessly, is convinced the last presidential election was “stolen” from Donald Trump — which could be considered dictatorial.
The lawmaker highlighted that slippery slope when he immediately went at it with Smith, and angrily defended his fantasy of a rigged election.
Smith pointed out “on the record” that there is still “no evidence or proof provided” of a rigged election.
“Oh, no, that’s wrong. That is absolutely false,” said Brooks, before Smith corrected him yet again.
"That tells me you haven't done your homework ... I'm getting in the last word on this one" -- Brooks explodes on Fox News host Sandra Smith after she accurately points out there's no evidence the 2020 election was stolen from Trump
Smith, to her credit, holds her ground pic.twitter.com/rFwRztuwIJ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 29, 2022
Brooks claims the whole idea of the Second Amendment was to arm citizens to take over the country if need be — and that not having enough guns will spark the appetite of “dictators.” That didn’t happen, however, during the 10-year ban on assault weapons that expired in late 2004.
Exactly what the framers had in mind concerning protecting a “well-regulated militia” in the Second Amendment is not as crystal-clear as Brooks contends. Many believe the Constitution is addressing exactly what it says: A “well regulated militia” — and not a bunch of beer-swilling pals blasting targets with military-grade assault rifles.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.