That’s how patriots do it.
The sound of liberal minds imploding could be heard for miles around.
H/T: My good buddy, Doris Wise Montrose
Over 1,000 Just Gathered for the Largest Felony Civil Disobedience Rally in US History
“This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law.” “We pledge our blood. We will not comply.”
Olympia, WA — Over the weekend the largest felony civil disobedience rally ever held in American history took place. It is estimated that anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 well armed gun owners showed up to the state capital in Olympia to openly violate the unconstitutional gun law, i594.
The event’s organizer, who frequently appears on the Free Thought Project, Gavin Seim, made the extraordinary nature of the rally very clear,
“This isn’t just a protest. We are here to openly violate the law.”
On his website Seim explains the ominous nature of the legislation:
On Nov 4th 2014 a piece of legislation called i594 passed in Washington State (read text). It will make so much as handing a gun to a friend a felony. While this started here in Washington, it was funded by big out of State money and you are next.
Seim goes on to emphasize the importance of this day of resistance:
This stand is about all of America. It’s about public officials deciding if they will keep their oath, or support tyranny. It’s about us deciding if we will stand or allow liberty to be lost.
On Dec 13th we gather for the largest Felony civil disobedience rally in American history. Thousands are coming to stand at the capital in Olympia. This is not simply a protest. We will openly exchange, buy and sell and trade guns and start a plan to break apart this legislation and violate i594 in every possible way. Because ALL law that violates the Constitution is not law, it is VOID!
We the people will not tolerate this law. We will not bow down and lick the boots of tyrants, we will stand for the liberty of our children? We’re not waiting for politicians, judges or lawyers. Our birthright is NOT to be touched. We gather and we will affirm that liberty.
And now a word from philosopher Ayn Rand:
Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.
But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators’ goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one’s rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is a mob’s defiance of legality as such.
The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.
The only power of a mob, as against an individual, is greater muscular strength—i.e., plain, brute physical force. The attempt to solve social problems by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent. The advocates of mass civil disobedience admit that their purpose is intimidation. A society that tolerates intimidation as a means of settling disputes—the physicalintimidation of some men or groups by others—loses its moral right to exist as a social system, and its collapse does not take long to follow.
Politically, mass civil disobedience is appropriate only as a prelude to civil war—as the declaration of a total break with a country’s political institutions.