Now, there’s debate as to whether that works or not. We’ve seen a lot of evidence that it doesn’t. Others dismiss that evidence out of hand.

What we don’t see, though, is a lot of explanation about how the state’s gun control laws work yet we saw a total of three mass shootings in less than two days in the state.

Nor do we see much explanation of how a guy can do all this:

Agents from the California Department of Justice arrested the man on Jan. 25 at his home in the Los Angeles suburb of Azusa, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced.

The man was under a “mental health-based prohibition” but was listed in the state’s Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) database as owning one firearm, according to a statement from the attorney general’s office.

…

After getting a search warrant, agents entered and found “four machine guns, seven assault weapons, a short-barreled rifle, four suppressors/silencers, six handguns, one shotgun, four rifles, 54 lower receivers/frames, 41 standard capacity magazines, 87 large-capacity magazines, and approximately 35,000 rounds of miscellaneous ammunition,” the statement said

Now, just to recount here, all of that is heavily restricted throughout the entire nation, much less being tough to legally get in California.

If the laws there work that well, just how could he have gotten all of this?

I mean, sure, I could get all of that here in Georgia if I had deep enough pockets, but in California?

And yet, we’re told the gun control there works.

Looking at the list of what this guy had on hand, I’m absolutely baffled at how anyone could actually believe that. A lot of this stuff is heavily restricted everywhere. In a pro-gun state, I’d have to jump through a ton of hoops to get this kind of hardware.

This guy did none of that.

That’s because people who want these kinds of guns but have no regard for the law can find all kinds of creative ways to get the weapons they want. Yes, even if gun-controlled California.

What gun control advocates have never really understood about their preferred position on the Second Amendment is that even if the right to keep and bear arms wasn’t an individual right–it is, but for the sake of argument–and even if it never existed, you’re still not going to keep the bad actors in society disarmed.

All you do is make it impossible for good guys to get guns that they can use to defend themselves.

Then again, considering what we recently saw in Canada, I’m suspecting that’s not a persuasive argument. I suspect most American gun control activists agree with what happened there and think self-defense should only exist as a concept.

That’s where we’re at as a society, though.

Look, back to the point here, California is nothing more than another glimpse into the future that anti-gunners have in store for the rest of us. Unfortunately for them, that glimpse also shows us just how pathetic their attempts at disarming the criminal element actually are.

If they want them, they can get them, and no law is going to stop them.

Then again, I actually think on some level, the average gun control activist likes crime. After all, it’s their justification for everything. If crime vanished tomorrow, so would their reason for being.