The California AG has horrible writing skills. Her use of not/either/or should have been a neither/nor (if she thought both should not be done) or she should have employed a second "not overturn" if she thought one should not be done. I suspect the former, but her language leaves that ambiguous.
Did she provide any support for her claim? 2A supporters can provide writings from the Framers regarding our claim that the purpose of the 2A was as a bulwark against tyranny.