There were two acts of rebellion this week. One occurred in Washington…state, that is. The other occurred in Boston—241 years ago. That second act of rebellion is known as the Boston Tea Party.
If you look at root causes, you’ll notice that both events were/are driven by the same motivation—rebellion against a corrupt and tyrannical state. In Boston, the root cause of the Tea Party was an act of economic warfare by the British East India company with the compliance of the British government against the growing competition of the American colonies, especially the ship owners of New England.
In Washington state, the rebellion is more wide-spread. It is the conservative gun-owners and law enforcement officials against the liberals in control of the Seattle/Tacoma area. The conservatives own the statehouse, less the Governor. Seattle/Tacoma has the larger population and controls the Governor. Bloomberg paid for the passage of Initiative 594 that imposed unrealistic regulations on the ownership and transfer of firearms.
The anniversary of the Boston Tea Party slipped by with little attention, if any, from the mainstream media. Their attention was focused on Washington state and the public rejection of I-594 by gun owners and law enforcement across the state.
The MSM was watching, but not reporting—unless the Seattle liberal machine tried to enforce their new law at a rally and it blew up in their face. But, the libs backed down and no confrontation, other than in local headlines, took place. Even less attention by the MSM was given to a press release by the Sheriff and Prosecutor of Lewis County, WA. They declared they would not enforce the new I-594 law.
Protesters rallied at the state Capitol in Olympia to denounce an expanded initiative on gun-purchase background checks that voters widely approved last month.
Originally published December 13, 2014 at 7:00 PM | Page modified December 15, 2014 at 7:10 AM
By Joseph O’Sullivan, Seattle Times Olympia bureau
OLYMPIA — Following a tradition going back to at least the Whiskey Rebellion of the early 1790s, demonstrators gathered here Saturday afternoon at the Capitol to protest the tyranny of what they consider unlawful American government.
But instead of decrying a tax on distilled liquor such as Pennsylvanians did just years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, demonstrators here at the “I Will Not Comply” rally denounced a law expanding gun-purchase background checks that was approved last month by Washington voters.
Initiative 594, which voters passed by a 19-point margin, expands background checks to people buying firearms in private sales or exchanging them in a transfer.
Speaking to the crowd, rally organizer Gavin Seim blamed events like the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut on people trying to regulate firearms.
“The people that are trying to take our guns are the ones that are causing events where children and families and people are lost,” said Seim, who ran unsuccessfully this year for U.S. Congress.
Washington State Patrol put the crowd at about 1,000 people; Seim estimated 1,500.
You can read the entire artlcle here at the Seattle Times.
The Washington state liberals and Bloomberg used the shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School as justification. This week, some of the families of the Sandy Hook victims filed suit against Bushmaster and others claiming the AR-15 is a military weapon and unsuitable for civilian use, therefore the sale of such a weapon should be banned.
I won’t post a portion of that article, it is just too stupid. You can follow the link and read it yourself. All I’ll say that New England, suffering under liberal oppression, is the only area such a suit has a chance of winning. Manufacturers cannot be held responsible for the use of their products. If that were so, no brewery would now exist in the United States, nor would alcohol be allowed to be imported.
The act of rebellion in Washington state was largely ignored outside of Seattle. The Connecticut lawsuit, however, could have wide-spread impact if the families win. Of course it would be too much to expect for them to sue the real culprits, the local school district who chose to allow those students and teachers to be unprotected, exposed and vulnerable to a mental defective and thief.