Sometimes anti-2A fanatics let slip how they really think about you and me (legal gun owners), and it’s generally pretty appalling. If we thought the same things about them that they think about us, they’d be incredibly offended.
And, frankly, they’d probably be offended if they knew what we actually think about them, but that’s a topic for another day…
For today, a perfect example of an anti-2A politician unintentionally revealing how they think of us comes out a story that is a Second Amendment win.
For reference, we talked about the background of today’s story here. In a nutshell, though, a bill was submitted in California that, according to a former police officer, if passed, would have required “church security teams, and anyone defending themselves outside their home, to retreat before using deadly force.”
In other words, the bill would have placed a legal requirement for people to retreat from active shooters (including mass shooters) before engaging them using a firearm. Defensive gun use would have been a concept completely removed from the legal playing field in that state.
Obviously, that would be a complete violation of the Second Amendment, not that California’s politicians seem to care about that. Fortunately, though, the bill has now been withdrawn. From BlazeNews:
Democrats in California shut down an effort to erode self-defense rights after massive backlash from their constituents and Second Amendment advocates.
That’s good news for people in California who want to be able to protect themselves and their families from criminals. Though, knowing anti-2A zealots, this bill will likely be resubmitted again in a few months or next year.
The legislator who had originally submitted the bill also stepped in a giant pile of… stuff… by revealing his motivation for submitting the bill in the first place. Again from BlazeNews:
“Protecting public safety has always been my top priority. AB 1333 sought to close a dangerous legal loophole that could allow armed aggressors to initiate confrontations in public, kill their victims, and then exploit self-defense laws to escape accountability,” he wrote about the proposal.
Zbur had previously addressed anger about the bill by saying that he was trying to prevent cases like that of Kyle Rittenhouse, who successfully claimed self-defense and has been lauded by many on the right.
That’s right, he wanted to keep people from being able to defend themselves from violent attackers the way that Kyle Rittenhouse did. And it sounds like he thinks that Rittenhouse was the bad guy in that situation.
Which is absolutely insane. Anyone who knows the details of the Rittenhouse situation know that violent political leftists attacked him and that he only shot in self-defense when it was the only way to save his life.
This bill was aimed at preventing a person from saving their own life.
If that doesn’t open your eyes about why gun control is evil and that the pushers of gun control are, at best, wrong-headed on the topic, I don’t know what will.
