"Spooking lawmakers with guns isn’t political genius."

We aren't "influencing" gun control legislation, we're NEGATING it.

David Codrea comments:

What makes you think "politics" is their primary goal? They're here, they're determined, they're growing and they're fed up. You can continue condemning them, as most no doubt will, but you're not going to stop them without overwhelming police state force attacking the exercise of the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.

My comment posted at the newspaper site:

As one of the 100 or so participants in Saturday's armed civil disobedience at the Washington state house, it is hardly surprising that you missed the entire point of the exercise. We're not interested in influencing the politics of how many more of our rights the legislature wants to negate in the aftermath of I-594. Do you really think we're interested in lobbying a political game that is rigged against our traditional liberties? Fool. What we did was NEGATED it with armed civil disobedience, just as we did back in December when the WSP-estimated 1,800 people showed up to break the new law and dare your state authorities to do anything about it. The paradigm has shifted and your editorial writer is apparently too clueless to understand that.

This is consistent with other such "I Will Not Comply" movements in states such as Connecticut, New York, Colorado and Maryland. Laws passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook hysteria have been negated by armed civil disobedience there as well. Lobbying? We're done lobbying. The fact of the matter is that there is no further infringement -- no "compromise" -- that the anti-firearm collectivists and the "reasonable" so-called "mainstream gun rights groups" such as Alan Gottlieb's SAF or even the NRA can agree upon that we cannot negate by further armed civil disobedience.

Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates have bought themselves a law. Let them enforce it.

Mike Vanderboegh, PO Box 926, Pinson, AL 35126