When "true" and "inane" overlap

Last March 11 (2014) I wrote an article titled California Scheming which discussed resistance of Sunnyvale and San Francisco to turn in magazines which are capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

The gist of the story was "Passive Resistance":  AKA: "Rampant Non-Compliance".   A quote:

The Oakland Tribune (http://tinyurl.com/lvtufr3 ) reported Saturday that since Sunnyvale's ban went into effect midnight Thursday, not one of the now-illegal magazines has been turned in. San Francisco police report that they have no system to track whether any magazines have been turned in for destruction under the new ordinance. San Francisco residents must surrender their high-capacity magazines to police by April 7.

It's a terrible thing, I know, for "common people" to oppose the will of The Government. [Smarm Alert!]   On the other hand, that is the National Character.

So I was surprised, as I was searching comments on past articles I had (for reasons not germane here) to find the following comment:

Anonymous said...
unfortunately you ignore laws, especially local laws, at your own great peril. 

Huh?



A lot of the people who comment here are very droll ... and while I nodded my head and moved on at the time, I still haven't decided whether that was a criticism of citizen activists, or a subtle condemnation of the people who 'will not be infringed'.   Or (more likely, I thought at the time), someone who acknowledges the risks of passive resistance.

I wish I know who said this.  I'd like to see if he was jerking my chain, or mildly castigating my approval.

But it doesn't really matter: it was a good comment. Even if it was inane.