On a dreary and cold morning interrupted occasionally by light rain showers, the Bloomberg-financed gaggle of anti-gun groups that converged at the U.S. Supreme Court today found that there was almost no one gathered in front of podium to listen to their scheduled gun control rants.
That’s because so many in the Bloomberg People Control Army had dispersed to the wings of the stage to try to screen or block the pro-freedom signs and liberty flags that my group, The Patriot Picket, had brought to challenge their anti-gun ideology.
Yes, in 2019, there are actually people protesting the freedom and liberty guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution.
This clownish street theatre, put on by those who wish to dramatically curtail Second Amendment rights, was trundled out once again in the hope of shaping the courtroom proceedings underway just behind the giant bronze doors of the Supreme Court building.
This morning, the justices heard oral arguments in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York. It is the first significant firearms case to be heard there in almost a decade.
As many who have followed the case know, New York City officials and politicians dropped decades of infringements in just the past few months in a cynical attempt to keep their infringements from being fully reviewed at the High Court. Their machinations failed. The justices put the case on the docket for full arguments today—in a move that sent gun control advocates across country stumbling toward their fainting couches.
The great anguish among the gun-grabbing community is the potential that the Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. NYC will be used as a basis to review all licensing and restriction schemes across the country.
Meanwhile, out on the sidewalk, the leading gun-grabbers for Moms Demand Action and Everytown, USA, along with the paid lackeys for the Brady Campaign and Giffords did their best to hide their disappointment that the “thousands of activists” they boasted would turn out, in fact, never showed.
Instead, by most estimates, the gun control crowd only numbered a couple of hundred.
My group, The Patriot Picket, although based in Maryland, regularly travels to all the states in our region when the gun haters meet to roll-out their tired rote demands for universal registration, more licensing, more restrictions and even outright confiscation.
We revere the Constitution and welcome every opportunity to stand for our founding principles.
Today was a chance to bring our liberty and freedom messages, plus our flags, to one of the greatest First Amendment forums in the United States—the public sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court. Often, the large American flags that we deploy are the ONLY Stars & Stripes visible at these kinds of events.
We are proud of our diversity. Our members are young and old, male and female, black and white, gay and straight. We come ready to debate policy and best practices, but when we hear the stale cries of “gun violence”, we answer back—as we did so many times today with our Bullhorn of Truth—that violence is violence, and that the focus must remain on people and their shortcomings, or their ill-intentions.
In the polarized environments we to often wade into, we do our best to say “meet us in the middle”, to set aside the Blame Game regarding the inanimate objects that are unfortunately used against some of us—and ask that we focus on the perpetrators who do us harm, whether they be mentally ill, criminally-minded, or just evil.
These pictures tell the tale, though. Most on the other side are only interested in screening us, blocking us, sneering at us, turning their backs on us, spewing at us, or distorting our words.
And yes, we hear the endless platitudes about “commonsense” laws, to which we reply: look no further than our Constitution, for it is a monument to “commonsense”. It is commonsense captured for the ages The wisdom is there if we will just choose to be informed by it!
Standing for the Constitution as we did today– with arms, knees and feet weary from the hours in the cold and rain– is, well, not for sissies. Yet, we are the happiest of warriors, and so blessed to have the First Amendment as a platform to stand for the 2nd. It is a gift, and we are ever grateful.
God bless America!
Umm, so tell us, how many of YOUR members showed up? You didn’t mention that figure. Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh, I’m sorry. I’ve been freeloading here. Do I need a membership?
(Love that my spellcheck though freeloading should be reloading)
I think the better question is how many of the anti gun, anti civil and anti human rights protesters were paid to be there. How many were compensated? As opposed to how many of the pro gun, pro human and pro civil rights protesters that had to come on their own dime.
You forgot,intelligent,patriotic Reaal Americans.
How many of our members? A couple of dozen. But unlike the bussed in Bloomberg lackeys every one of ours actually knew the basis for the case being argued today.
Maybe we will see you at the next one.
You weren’t there pissbrain.
Put your head back up your ass where it belongs.
Really? The posts here always make a point of how small the Moms turn out is (as did this particular post) as demonstrating the thinness of their opposition, and how they always try to hide that fact. We should not play that game. The pot should not call the kettle black.
Right. So what kept you from joining?
This cretin’s comment is typical of those”folks” who dwell on the left side of life. Pay NO heed.
Well since MOST pro 2nd amd people WORK and PAY TAXES…and this being a WORKDAY they were at WORK
Then ‘mom cry for BS’ being PAID to show up (cough bloomyberg cough) and NOT WORKING or on Welfare, off course more of them showed up
I unfortunately had to be at work that day doing a job which makes a difference daily. If I was retired I’d of loved to show a sign of support if only to tell some fascist gun grabber to eff off.
Plenty of people make hay about standing up today in a protest to make a difference tomorrow however I don’t think it matters all too much. The composition of the court is what it is and I doubt the judges in black take any protests in front of the building into consideration. The 2A is such a live wire topic they all have their positions staked out already and little is going to sway them.
We’ve got a decent chance on this one however even a positive outcome won’t move the needle much on rights overall. Our recent 2A victories were hollowed out by exceptions noted in the cases and by politicians which didn’t give a shit what was handed down. They think the laws preceding the decisions still apply and matter more. Why would they change now?
The only thing stopping them is the sheer logistics of confiscation or prosecution. They can’t even prosecute real violent crimes thoroughly so how are they going to punish millions of gun owners? They don’t have the cops or the prison space. So we’ll see what happens next year in VA with these new gun laws and if they get more than 10 percent compliance. Will they start booting doors or just throw people caught with guns in other circumstances in jail? The states were supposed to be micro laboratories of new ideas and laws so let’s see if this attempt at Utopia works in VA.
Something tells me Mark N, AKA MinerVlad49er is too fat to attend his own left wing rallies.
Thank you for associating me with Mark N, his posts are often quite informative.
Whatever, Vlad.
yea yeah yeah, either you haven’t been around here very long Merle or you lack reading comprehension.
Miner seems to be a pretty big fan of you and officially endorsed your posts. So that tells me all I need to know about you.
merle. miner is the enemy. And he is going to do all he can to cause friction amongst us. Mark N. is not our enemy. miner embraces him to cause a split. Don’t fall for his fascist bullshit.
I was wondering that also. And by the looks of the pics, not so much it seems.
But i think there is a point people are missing here. SCOUS doesnt give a shit if antigunners had 10000 there and pro gunner had 100 or visa versa. SCOTUS cares about the law in relation to the constitution. Be they left or right leaning. Its not a popularity contest eventhough it may seam that way from the way the left leaning justices behave (through thier populist leaning written interpretation of the law). they ask reasoned questions expect and resoned and well researched answers. If you make a good case through logic and precedent then you have a better chance of swaying them and thus winning. You have to be kidding if SCOTUS lookes out the windows and says, oh look, more pro abortionists then pro life. Looks like a hanger up the vag kinda day for me!
SCOTUS hasn’t cared about the COTUS for at least 105 years. The rule on ‘precedent’ and when that won’t get them what they want they just make it up…like the obamacare ruling for one simple example.
Sotomayor gave the game away when talking about the DACA ruling. She said “first we must think about what the effect will be on society”. Meaning of course, that it’s all about social engineering. ‘Law’ has nothing to do with it…it’s just a facade for the useful idiots.
When I studied Con Law many years ago, I came away with the opinion that the Court seems often to decide the result it wants (what the majority will vote for) and then applies the test needed to obtain that result. In many cases, the decision was policy driven, not by rigid application of immutable rules of law. IT is, though, the nature of the beast, and all appellate courts engage in such activities at some point or another.
Absolutely correct. The Court is quite insular and ignores the3common commotions and protests outside its doors.
you have to have a mind before you need to know and you don’t
It’s easy to show-up and hold a pre-printed sign when you don’t have a job. I’m pretty sure that all the 2A supporters that did show had to use precious vacation time from their jobs. The 2A supporters that didn’t show? They were busy at work, making America great again. And unlike the sheep that showed up to hold Bloomberg’s pre-printed signs, every one of the 2A supports knew exactly why they were there. I can’t believe that my vote counts as much as the people shown in this video: https://www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation/videos/541337483083017/
Thanks for being there, Patriot Picket.
Godspeed Patriot Pickets!
It’s nice that you guys are close enough (Maryland, willing to go despite the weather and have the resources to take the time to do so.
People who can make it to the location keep it reasonably civil and, if necessary actually hold their own in an argument without resorting to sloganeering, are priceless.
Well done.
Still, next time let us know in advance so we can send you some bivys or something for the night before. That looked damn unpleasant and I can’t be using all my gear on the weekdays anyway!
AMEN!!! PP
I happened to be there today with my family. We are all pro gun: my wife and two girls. While we were there, we observed maybe 75 antis and probably about 10-15 pro gun folks. Then another 25-30 people that you couldn’t really tell where they stood. The antis used the same old talking points: almost 100 people die daily due to gun violence. Of course they failed to mention that about 2/3 of those are suicides, the rest are a mix of police, defensive, and true criminal shootings. A few actual criminal murders per day out of 350 million people, doesn’t seem like a lot to me. It’s a shame these people can’t focus on real issues like homelessness, addiction, or just about anything else that would save real significant numbers of lives. I also hope the Supreme Court can see to do the right thing and send a message to the cities and states that are enacting unconstitutional regulations.
Larry,
Friendly correction: STOP using Progressive language. We are fighting unconstitutional LAWS, not regulations.
That may seem like an insignificant quibble. It is not. The word “regulation” is much softer and carries the connotation of some requirements in order to responsibly exercise a freedom. The word “law” is much more harsh and is a flat-out prohibition, period.
Thus, gun-grabbers describe their agenda as “common-sense regulations” for firearm ownership, which sounds like they support firearm ownership. In reality gun-grabbers’ actual agenda is to flat-out prohibit the exercise of our freedom to own firearms. But they know that they stand a much greater chance of losing public support if their agenda is prohibiting exercise of a freedom. So they stick with “regulations” rather than prohibitions.
Progressives did the same exact thing with the terms “fetus” and “abortion”. It sounds so much less harsh and acceptable when we talk about aborting a fetus, rather than killing a baby in the womb. How many people do you think would still support a mother’s right to kill her baby in her womb, versus a mother’s right to abort a fetus?
There is a principle: whoever controls History text books controls the future. Well, whoever controls the language also controls the future. Don’t let Progressives control the language.
“There is a principle: whoever controls History text books controls the future.”
The vast majority of public school teachers vote Democrat.
If we don’t address that, our rights are screwed…
The reason most public school teachers are Democrats is because they have been to college and had an opportunity to learn the true history of our nation in the world.
As Trump said, he loves the poorly educated because he is able to fool them easily.
Once an individual has the opportunity to attend an institution of higher learning, often they are exposed to the truth of reality and so, they become Democrats.
Miner. The people that attend higher education and then go on into business are republicans. They are the folk that drive the economy. Make it possible for the hangers on to have first world problems. The folk that are weak minded and weak willed become democrats. And teachers.
My first retirement is from a school district, where my wife still works. The saying was, ‘ those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.’
The fact that you fell for the propaganda kinda proves my point.
Geoff PR,
That may be an insurmountable hurdle. The workplace is now an incredibly hostile environment for teachers and staff who are conservative, at least in my community. I personally know conservative teachers who no longer feel free to advocate their positions because the school district will, at best, make their work lives miserable at school and, at worst, fire them. I also know one conservative teacher who left the school district because he could not reconcile school culture with his personal convictions.
Saying it another way, many schools have become so toxic that a conservative teacher can no longer work there in good conscience. It is akin to expecting a person who opposes human trafficking to work at a brothel.
As usual, Miner49er gets it exactly backwards.
The people who go to college, come out as progressive Democrats, and remain that way do so because they had all their preexisting beliefs confirmed by their professors and all the offices of the institution (which are expressly formed to reinforce that single point of view) or because they swallowed what they were told and didn’t question what the authorities told them.
The sad fact is, Vlad, that the same people who told us all to question authority back in the sixties have become the very authorities whom we shall not question. Believe them at your own peril.
The true questioners and critical thinkers — people who have actually read the Cosntitution, observed human behavior, and looked at the history of this nation and of socialist governments with their own eyes — emerge from the fevered hothouse of the educational system as conservatives, libertarians, and political agnostics.
:Laws” is probably a better word choice. Technically, there are three kinds of laws, and often it is necessary to distinguish between them. There are statutes (enacted by state legislatures and governors), ordinances (enacted by counties/parishes and municipalities) and regulations (adopted by either federal, state, or local administrative agencies).
Thank you for being there!
Has anyone else noticed how pleasant and happy the pro 2nd A people look at these events?
By comparison, the anti-2nd A groups looks like a bunch of miserable trolls that should be hiding under a bridge.
I bet if you look at the anti group long enough, you might spot Gollum.
I was there, quietly holding one of the US flags. I was called a Nazi. I was told by an older gent in a blue “March for Our Lives” hat (Bloomberg’s Everytown “sponsored” those, too) that I was desecrating *his* flag. I lost count of how many times people bumped into me and then immediately apologized … even though I wasn’t in a crowded area. There were a half-dozen people trying to sneak up and place anti-gun stickers on us.
The young lady standing next to me was handed a red Moms Demand Attention “where’s Waldo?” hat and a sign. She stood and read the sign for a couple of minutes, then we had a brief discussion about it. “Yeah, I didn’t make this sign. I’m not sure I completely agree with it.” She ended up handing it to someone else. It was pretty clear that she was just a body to fill-out the ranks and make for good visuals. She didn’t have a clue about the case before SCOTUS.
Sounds like she was bussed in to hold a sign. The left is ALL about optics, and making young people think if they don’t agree with ALL the regressive leftist views, they will be unpopular and ultimately become outcasts.
The schools POUND this BS into the students heads daily.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-appears-unlikely-hand-victory-gun-rights-backers-2nd-n1094356
An op-ed by a notorious antigun liberal, who argues that “there are indications” that the Court will decide that the case is moot. No facts are suggested to support his feeling, other than that Ginsburg and Sotomayor were obviously going for this result. (Since three of the conservative justices asked any questions, that is a bridge too far.) A linked article argues that Roberts, to avoid having the court appear as “political” should completely avoid any second amendment cases until after the election, i.e., the “optics” and avoiding an even more contentious election cycle–neither of which should have anything to do with the question–should counsel avoidance of an unavoidable question.
Yeah, sure. Sounds to me like a set up to argue that the Court is too activist when a decision they do not like is handed down.
Anti-gunners using the First Amendment to trash and try to take away the Second Amendment. Now there is some rich irony for you.
I hope they blast all the illegal gun laws in their decision to stop the tens of thousands of illegal laws being passed by communist otherwise were going to need lots of rope…
Comments are closed.