America’s west-coast Paper of Wreckord just published its official editorial opinion: 2nd Amendment sanctuaries are acts of faithlessness in government.

Ummm … Duh?

The Times waves its hands like “faithlessness in government” is a bad thing. But of course the constitutional amendments–and the Second Amendment in particular–were “acts of faithlessness in government.”

The Framers did not believe any government–including the one they were kicking off–was ever immune from tyranny. They enshrined in the population the irrevocable right to heft their weapons and say, “That’s all we can stands; we can’t stands no more.”

Faith in God makes sense. Faith in the laws of physics makes sense. Faith in government? Maybe if you’ve never read a lick of history.

And by the way: isn’t President Trump a branch of “the government” right now? Not a lot of faith in him coming from the Times lately. Could we be looking at a double standard? You be the judge. The procession of fuzzy logic culminates with:

If local jurisdictions dislike state laws, there are democratic mechanisms for changing them. Laws that have been duly passed and enacted should be followed; that’s what the rule of law means. We can make exceptions for prosecutorial discretion or for truly reprehensible laws — Jim Crow laws come to mind. Gun laws, however, do not fall into that category, and this move to flout them is a display of faithlessness in our democracy.

Oh, the roses you could grow with this bull manure.

In effect, the Times says: Unconstitutional laws reprehensible to liberals (“truly reprehensible laws”) may be disobeyed, because that’s BAD rule of law. But “Gun laws … do not fall into that category”–presumably because gun laws are GOOD rule of law, though the Times offers no explanation.

And who knew that amendments to the Constitution fell into categories?

If a state makes a Jim-Crow law abrogating the Fifteenth Amendment (prohibiting denial of the right to vote based on race) … BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN. Fill the streets with civil disobedience. Resist.

But if a state makes law after law after LAW abrogating the Second Amendment and removing the population’s ability to resist government tyranny not only against black citizens but against the population entire? Go vote … or whatever. Maybe something will change sometime. But don’t do anything CRAZY–like pass local laws in line with the Second Amendment. That might break democracy and make the Times sad.

What the Times writes is embarrassing, the logic of five-year-olds: “What we think is important is important, because we think it’s important. What you redneck militia whackos think is important is not important, because we don’t think it’s important.”

What the Times and other liberals of their ilk cannot seem to get their five-year-old minds around is this: Second Amendment civil rights activists are sick to death of having their right to keep and bear arms treated like a mere privilege granted at the discretion of the government, like a driver’s license.

They are tired of states like Virgnia, New York, and California passing any law they can get away with–what the Times hilariously calls “pragmatic laws”–to criminalize law-abiding citizens’ owning, carrying, transporting, loading, and storing their freedom-delivery devices. To Second Amendment activists, these laws are “reprehensible,” an affront to a nominally free people.

The Times does its best to fear-monger about the rally in Virginia today, speaking of possible violence and white supremacy:

Virginia officials fear a repeat of the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville … So nervous are state officials about another outburst of violence that Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency and barred firearms and other weapons from the capitol grounds until Tuesday, the day after the rally.

This seems to have been a cooperative effort among the Left media, though not a bit of violent behavior ended up unfolding:

The Times also tries to paint the rally–which hadn’t unfolded yet–as some sort of menacing mob tactic:

We all have the right to protest or mount a demonstration, and pro-gun advocates are no different until their demonstrations cross the line into acts of violence or physical intimidation.

Even this platitude from the Times miss the mark.

What is the purpose of keeping and bearing arms, if not to intimidate the government into following the Constitution and respecting the civil rights of its citizens, particularly when asking politely and voting produces no effect?

The protesters in Virginia may have missed an opportunity. It might have been better if they had brought their firearms into the exclusion zone, in spite of Ol’ Blackface‘s emergency gun ban.

Imagine if the whole country had been treated to the spectacle of hundreds of peaceful gun owners arrested and carted away for simply standing together with their civil rights in hand.

Imagine the visceral impact as Second Amendment activists around the country watched and thought:

“If these outrages aren’t stopped, soon that will be me.”