As backward as I think it is, I can understand on a base level why leftist politicians want to restrict rights here and there. Presenting reasoned arguments as to why something should be less available to the public is, at its core, understandable despite how wrong it often is.

What I can’t understand is a politician questioning why I need to practice my right. It’s a question that I noticed irks me far more than the ridiculous talking points I’m often confronted with.

California Senator and anti-gun Democrat poster child Dianne Feinstein did just that on Thursday.

Today we have 15 million assault weapons in the U.S. These are guns modeled after military weapons and then sold to civilians. For what? You can’t use it for hunting. You don’t need it for defense. What do you really need it for?

— Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) March 28, 2018

This tweet is full of ridiculous claims. For one, we see the use of the word “assault weapon” which means jack squat. It’s a nebulous phrase that can be placed on any object someone like Feinstein doesn’t like in order to make their object of ire out to be more than it is. My keyboard can be turned into an assault weapon if I assault somebody with it, as can my lamp, or my guitar.

What she really means is any scary looking gun that lacks a wooden finish. I’m not going to assume she understands the ins and outs of semi-automatic weapons. Regardless, we’re going to continue this article with the understanding that anti-gun California politician No. 5683 is talking about semi-automatic rifles.

Feinstein goes on to claim that you can’t hunt with semi-auto rifles.

Yes, you can. I’m not sure if Feinstein has gone hunting a day in her life, but I can attest that semi-automatic rifles are fairly common in the deer hunting scene.

She then goes on to say that we don’t need it for defense.

Yes, we do. AR-15’s make great home defense weapons against intruders for one, but I’ll remind the California Senator that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t put in place by the founders to protect us from deer. It was put there as a deterrent from governments becoming dictatorial, either by the machinations of a power-hungry madman or by the California moral busybody who thinks she knows what’s best for people she’s never met.

Her ignorance laden tweet then caps off with “what do you really need it for?”

Something about a politician asking this kind of question sets off alarm bells in my head. Someone in a position of power eyeing my property, and by extension my right, puts me on edge a bit.

The proper response to Feinstein’s question is: “I’m a U.S. citizen, I want one, and it’s none of your damn business why.”

Feinstein and politicians like her forget that they are elected officials, not liege lords by which the peasantry must swear fealty. They are not our bosses, we are their bosses. They were not put into office to rule, they were put there to serve. The office is not a throne where the rules are subject to their whims, it is an office that obeys the Constitution.

Feinstein and her like seem to forget this, and this is why the founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment — or any amendment for that matter — in place. They foresaw someone like Feinstein coming along and seeing the powers given to them as a responsibility to dictate the people for their own good, not govern the people AND the government responsibly.

We are a free people, and we intend to stay that way. Even if by some work of the devil, people like Feinstein manage to repeal the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms will not be any less of a right. Millions will still hold on tightly to their firearms, and woe to the ruling body who tries to take them.

It’s not up to Feinstein to determine what is and is not a good reason for Americans to practice those freedoms. She and politicians like her need to know their place, and it’s not between Americans and their rights.