Several examples of Christians opposing all violence and means of self defense have been in the news lately, and I can't deal with all such examples. But three particular examples come to mind, and I first want to show you one example from Mr. Robert Schenck in a ridiculously titled article, Christ or a Glock. "Well, first of all you're making an immediate decision that if someone invades your home, they are going to die," Rev. Schenck replied. "So you are ready to kill another human being [read more]
Christopher Pinto, president of the advocacy group Massachusetts Gun Rights, Inc., of Worcester, claimed he bought an AR-15 for his wife on Wednesday to beat Healey’s directive and insisted he intends to keep it.
“What is she going to do, come to my house and get it?“ asked Pinto, who was in Cleveland as a delegate at the Republican National Convention.
A group of gun owners gathered at the State House Thursday evening to protest Healey’s action, with another rally planned on Saturday when the Legislature is in session. Many said Healey’s decision was not an enforcement of the law but rather stemmed from her interpretation based on what they say is her anti-gun stance. Most in attendance said they own the types of rifles Healey says are illegal. Even though she said she won’t take action against those who bought them before Wednesday, the protesters said they were concerned she could change her mind and arbitrarily confiscate their weapons in the future.
One of the comments is interesting. We read, “I called the local gun shop around noon on Wednesday, while they had heard something in the news they had not received any directive to stop selling the firearms so they sold the remainder of their stock (they were out by 2pm). These directives require some form of legal notification not someone forwarding something from facebook. She had a press conference in the morning and posted it online but until the notification was officially delivered to the gun shops they had no duty to stop selling.”
Note the position of the FFLs versus the AG. The AG announced her decision in an opinion piece and over Facebook. That’s not how legal orders get disseminated. The commenter is right.
The AG is doing this, I surmise, because she knows her case is weak and unsupported by law, and is trying to effect law from her office anyway. She is the kind of person who whispers in the ear of the playground bully in order to get someone else beaten up. She isn’t going to do the work herself, but she will dispatch men with warrants and guns, and show up in court in order to prosecute what she believes is evil. Or if she can’t, she’ll try to bully people into doing her will because of what might happen to them. Compliance to avoid the unknown.
She’s what school girls call a “mean girl,” a totalitarian and control freak with an obsession. She needs to be put back into her place.