Another mass shooting, but the system is working!

[boing]

It would appear that the only people mad at Supreme Court Justices presently are the pro-abortion crowd, after all, they are the ones picketing the justice's homes which, of course, is absolutely illegal but condoned by lefty politicians.

See below.



.

[Dushan]

Boing, no problem, I was busy today so thanks for jumping in..

Until this crowd understands that the bill of rights is a list of things the government is NOT allowed to do, and not a list of things the government allowed people to do, the discussion is pointless.

That concept is so foreign to those outside US where the government is the outmost authority and the people are “subjects”. They just cannot fathom the fact that people have rights that cannot be infringed by a (possibly tyrannical) government.

From my cold, dead hands…

[boing]

I think the banner behind Goebbel's, sorry Schumer's, back must say "My right, my decision" ----- now isn't that what we all say. "My Right My Decision", I'm happy with that. You become the murderer who terminates a human life days before birth and I will become the person who saves others if able. Good deal.

.

[John Hill]

I believe that the only way for the gun debate to change is for half of the presiding members of the court to meet their demise at the hand of a gun-toting idiot, I am
sure that the other judges in a very quick fashion will rule that the 2nd amendment is out of date and requires changing regardless of what the gun lobby says. The
ramifications of this would possibly have the gun lovers rioting about their rights being taken away. I know the above will never come to pass, but sooner or later
people have to come to their senses and put human life above the right to bear arms.

I fear we will never, at least in our lifetimes, see any resolution and I cannot avoid the conclusion the majority like things as they are in preference to any alternative. I just hope their spreading of this part of their 'culture' does not reach critical mass anytime soon.

[boing]

Unlikely John because other countries like UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not have a right to protect themselves. Look what happened in COVID with the Australian police bullying and arresting poor old ladies and the Canadians having Martial Law declared over a truck convoy with the truckers assets frozen..

[media]https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/15 ... t-video-vn[/media]

Sort out your own problems then worry about ours.


.

[John Hill]

Unlikely John because other countries like UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not have a right to protect themselves.

We do not need any sacred scripts from the hands of horse-hair-wigged hypocrites to know our rights as ours are secured as natural rights and we know what they are.

Look what happened in COVID with the Australian police bullying and arresting poor old ladies and the Canadians having Martial Law declared over a truck convoy with the truckers assets frozen..

[media]https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/15 ... t-video-vn[/media]

I know it is a lot to ask any American any question on geography but I trust you do know that Australia is about 2000kms from here? We are about 12000kms from Canada, I guess you already have a reasonable idea where Canada is?

IMHO Australia which once projected a brotherly relationship with NZ is now becoming more and more like the USA and is absorbing the 'culture' along with the problems thereof.

[Dushan]

We do not need any sacred scripts from the hands of horse-hair-wigged hypocrites to know our rights as ours are secured as natural rights and we know what they are.

You may know what your rights are , but does the government know that it shall not infringe them?
It’s that little part that that the rest of the world is missing in their “sacred scripts”.

[Dushan]

It would appear that the only people mad at Supreme Court Justices presently are the pro-abortion crowd, after all, they are the ones picketing the justice's homes which, of course, is absolutely illegal but condoned by lefty politicians.

See below.



.

This very much sounds like a threat and a call to commit violence. Is DOJ investigating? Are charges laid against Schumer?

[boing]

Don't be silly Dushan he is a politician of the party in power.

The DoJ under Garland is a branch of the Dem party They don't see crime in the streets but spend millions to try to prove Jan 6 was an insurrection.

What sickened me was the smirk as the crowd cheered which told him he had the brainless jerks under control.

.

[llondel]

It would appear that the only people mad at Supreme Court Justices presently are the pro-abortion crowd, after all, they are the ones picketing the justice's homes which, of course, is absolutely illegal but condoned by lefty politicians.

Why is it illegal? The court ruled some years ago that protest outside of people's homes is protected by the 1st Amendment. That kicks any state laws to the contrary into touch and if they suddenly decide that it depends on the occupation of the person who lives in the home then they'd better have a really good reason why they're protected and no one else is.

[boing]

Why is it illegal? T

Time to carry out more home work Llondel.

Protesting around "someones" home and trying to influence the legal system are two different matters.

From "FindLaw" a legal professional journal

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/cour ... ces-homes/

The protesters may argue that they are exercising their First Amendment rights in a manner that falls short of harassment. The problem, however, is that federal law appears to prohibit their action.

The "Picketing or Parading" law states that anyone "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty," cannot picket near a judge's residence. A conviction on this charge could come with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both.

.

[John Hill]

You may know what your rights are , but does the government know that it shall not infringe them?
It’s that little part that that the rest of the world is missing in their “sacred scripts”.

We keep our government will informed and if they don't listen we can swop them for another one.

[llondel]

Why is it illegal? T

Time to carry out more home work Llondel.

Protesting around "someones" home and trying to influence the legal system are two different matters.

From "FindLaw" a legal professional journal

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/cour ... ces-homes/

The protesters may argue that they are exercising their First Amendment rights in a manner that falls short of harassment. The problem, however, is that federal law appears to prohibit their action.

The "Picketing or Parading" law states that anyone "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty," cannot picket near a judge's residence. A conviction on this charge could come with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both.

.

The defence I'd throw at that one is that as they'd already made the decision, the action was not influencing it, merely expressing an opinion about it.

While I understand the feelings of the protesters, if anything they probably made it even less likely that any of the court would change their vote.

[Dushan]

You may know what your rights are , but does the government know that it shall not infringe them?
It’s that little part that that the rest of the world is missing in their “sacred scripts”.

We keep our government will informed and if they don't listen we can swop them for another one.

Until you can’t, at which point it is too late to do anything about it. Keep handing them your guns, it’s not going to end up well.

[boing]

Llondel,
There is however a strong argument that permitting protests in this case could influence future decisions which still falls under the law.

.

[llondel]

Llondel,
There is however a strong argument that permitting protests in this case could influence future decisions which still falls under the law.

.

The catch there is that peaceful protests are encouraged and are intended to attempt to influence those making decisions. Why should one group be exempt from protesters when other groups are not?

Of course, the fact that it's a lifetime appointment doesn't help - a California judge did something the locals didn't like and got recalled for his efforts. Several members of the Supreme Court have demonstrably perjured themselves over the decision in question, but politics will prevent them being held to account over it.

[John Hill]

Until you can’t, at which point it is too late to do anything about it. Keep handing them your guns, it’s not going to end up well.

Do you know just how many guns the NZ Govt has?

[Dushan]

Until you can’t, at which point it is too late to do anything about it. Keep handing them your guns, it’s not going to end up well.

Do you know just how many guns the NZ Govt has?

No idea, but if it is just one more than what the citizens* have it is one too many.


* sorry I meant subjects…

[John Hill]

sorry I meant subjects…

https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/1e/euud1q6n_o.jpg

Ignorant arse-wipe!

[Dushan]

John, with language like this you may end up joining Plum doing the sheep thingy for a week or two.