You have to admire the persistence and delusional nature of gun’s rights activists. Give them a chance to prove they’re law abiding citizens and what’s the first thing they do? They proclaim loudly they’re going to violate the law, proving — rather clearly — that there’s no such thing as “a good guy with a gun.”
The latest evidence of this comes from California, where fifty or so 2A activists gathered on Sunday morning to protest the six gun control measures signed by Governor Jerry Brown, claiming it will turn “law-abiding citizens into criminals.”
The lack of self-awareness is astounding, isn’t it?
At issue, according to the Sacramento Bee, is a state ban that would include “bullet-button” rifles, which allow users to quickly dislodge a magazine by pushing a button. The others would restrict the size of magazines; any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds would require a background check.
These measures are a direct result of the shooting in Orlando and are an effort to rein in the proliferation of guns.
Now, does anyone here see anything at all about banning all firearms? Aside from the ban on “bullet-button” rifles, I don’t see anything at all. I don’t even see “common sense regulations” because guns aren’t restricted to single shot rifles.
From the reaction, though, you’d think that Governor Brown was sending in jack-booted thugs aboard U.N. helicopters to steal people’s second born child.
Ammosexuals from across Northern California gathered to protest the laws at 9 a.m. Saturday, hoisting banners proudly announcing: “WE WILL NOT COMPLY.”
The co-organizer, Cory Gwathney, said that he and others had planned the rally for months. The first goal was to prevent Brown from signing the bills, but with that Quixotic goal already failed, they decided to change their message to one of noncompliance:
He passed them yesterday before we could get out here, which sort of threw a wrench in the plans. Now we’re just trying to send the message that we’re probably not going to comply. They’re infringing on our rights, and we’re not going to stand for that.
Another protestor, Steve Sarver, traveled from San Jose to take part in the rally. Sarver is a member of “patriot” group called the III%, a group that takes its name from the claim that only three percent of colonists during the American Revolution fought against Great Britain on the battlefield.
Police were on call watching the event carefully, especially after the Neo-Nazi protests at the Capitol last Sunday, which injured 10 people.
“I went over to the officers and asked them, ‘Do we look like criminals to you?’ And they all said that no, we didn’t,” Sarvar said. “But then I told them that this legislation that’s just been signed into law is going to turn ordinary people into criminals.”
I wonder what a criminal looks like to Sarvar. Someone with a skin tone that’s a few shades south of “glows in the dark?”
Jorge Riley, president of the Sacramento chapter of the conservative California Republic Assembly organization, was also there, and said that Brown’s actions were “reckless and irresponsible.” Brown and the Legislature, he said, are trying to “usurp the federal Constitution.” He went on to add:
There needs to be a complaint filed with an injunction because these are an unconstitutional set of laws that have been passed, and they shouldn’t be able to become laws until they are reviewed by a judge. It’s unconstitutional, that’s why we have judicial review.
Riley added this nugget of wisdom, too:
When you pass laws that restrict guns, you stimulate a black market. So the only thing is that people will still have guns, but they’ll have them illegally.
Or you could just not buy them at all and be a law abiding citizen. I mean, it’s really up to you. It’s your choice to break the law; nobody is forcing you to.
Don’t get me wrong; just because something is a law doesn’t mean it should be followed just for being a law. For instance, a law that prohibits people from using the bathroom they identify with in public buildings is an unjust law. A law that prohibits people from marrying the person they love is an unjust law. A law forcing people to set in the back of the bus is an unjust law. But you need a metric to define “just” from “unjust,” and if your metric is like mine — it targets, unfairly and disproportionately, a population heavily and historically persecuted (and I mean actually persecuted, not “they won’t let me have my way” ) by the majority — then laws banning a “bullet-button” don’t even register. And attempts to make it register aren’t even worth a bitter laugh in the face.