Poll of the Day > Armed Californian arrested near Kavanaughs home

(+) Yeah! (+)

Showed up in a taxi, found with a gun and knife and admitted to wanting to kill the Supreme Court Justice

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2022/06/08/court-armed-california-man-arrested-near-justice-kavanaughs-house/

Talk about traveling to incite violence, anyway the Roe V Wade ruling is expected anyday now, just hope that things dont turn bloody :(

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qHGrzoS9AbE

... hopefully crap like this hasn't enticed anyone else to show up armed to a judges home or rally

I hope they do turn bloody. The Gov deserves it at this point.

I mean you advocate for armed violence for people who agree with you. You don't believe others should have that same opportunity? Sounds hypocritical to me.

JixHedgehog posted...

just hope that things dont turn bloody :(

lol I love how they act like they forget their anti-violence stuff when threatening to use "second amendment" responses to everything.

BlackScythe0 posted...

lol I love how they act like they forget their anti-violence stuff when threatening to use "second amendment" responses to everything.

They don't forget they just don't ever take personal responsibility for anything they ever do or say

Jen0125 posted...

They don't forget they just don't ever take personal responsibility for anything they ever do or say

I know thats why I said they act like they forget.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I know thats why I said they act like they forget.

True true then lol

Cancel the Supreme Court.

Cancel Commiefornia

Still feels like North America is moving backwards. All because of some backwards looking people.

JixHedgehog posted...

Talk about traveling to incite violence,

Uh, that'd be committing (or attempting to commit) violence, not inciting it. Although, more so, it'd be either attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder depending on when he was caught (I *think* it could still count as conspiracy)

Regardless, the suspect was a fucking idiot. Even if he hadn't decided to take a taxi to his intended victim's home, I doubt he would've been able to pull it off... although it makes me wonder how safe SCOTUS judges are most of the time. I know a lot of congresspeople/senators aren't terribly hard to reach most of the time.

this is likely going to start happening more often. when people get hopeless and frustrated they will lash out in bad ways like this.

Well, Kavanaughs perspective on abortion rights would have my mother die from her miscarriage, so my sympathy is rather non-existent.

Jen0125 posted...

I hope they do turn bloody. The Gov deserves it at this point.

ahh yes the language of insurrection. Its even scarier when you remember Jen is armed with that pistol she straw-purchased for her felon boyfriend who dumped her.

BeerOnTap posted...

ahh yes the language of insurrection. Its even scarier when you remember Jen is armed with that pistol she straw-purchased for her felon boyfriend who dumped her.

I straw purchased a gun for someone else that is owned by me and my daily carry. It's weird how that works
Lmao

Yes I bought it for a person who has literally never personally handled it that makes sense

https://youtu.be/h-aB-cwZucA

How many arms

Metalsonic66 posted...

How many arms

Why doesn't Goro use 4 guns?

Lokarin posted...

Why doesn't Goro use 4 guns?

the way he moves, I dont think he can wipe himself

VampireCoyote posted...

the way he moves, I dont think he can wipe himself

He's a dragon... he's got a front cloaca

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


forcing unwilling women to carry a fetus to term certainly does seem terrorizing

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'd consider it more of a response to it.

You cannot defeat antidemocratic movements with democracy, unfortunately. Expect this to escalate as the American government becomes less representative of the voting populace. It'll be like the good old days where you had a slave rebellion every year or two

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The red herring here is trying to draw a direct line between the law and morals.

I love how they're quick to call this domestic terrorism but January 6th was just a visit to the Capitol

Jen0125 posted...

I love how they're quick to call this domestic terrorism but January 6th was just a visit to the Capitol

MTG is trying to say that the people arrested there are "prisoners of war" when she means political prisoner... so it's like she's trying to say that not only was their an insurrection but it was a coup as well.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Not by themselves.

BeerOnTap posted...

ahh yes the language of insurrection. Its even scarier when you remember Jen is armed with that pistol she straw-purchased for her felon boyfriend who dumped her.

remind me what happened on January 6th 2021

Unfortunately, since mass shootings are just the price we have to pay in exchange for having a free society according to conservatives, The SC justices are just going to have to accept that they might all be killed by insane shooters. Sad for them.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Give me a break.

I don't advocate for violence. I'm simply recognizing the cause and effect of implementing laws that would have literally killed my mother during the pregnancy she had prior to me. I don't personally use violence to intimidate people nor do I think it good. I recognize it as a reaction that will occur when lawmakers are actively killing people.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Asking if it's moral to use the threat of violence to change laws places an inherent value on the law which does not exist. We should be asking if the threat of violence is moral if used to protect women's rights.

The law is just a process. It has no value if not encouraging moral behaviour. Otherwise it would be immoral for the supreme Court to change the law to begin with. You're using the phrase as a code to obfuscate what is actually occurring.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Asking if it's moral to use the threat of violence to change laws places an inherent value on the law which does not exist. We should be asking if the threat of violence is moral if used to protect women's rights.

The law is just a process. It has no value if not encouraging moral behaviour. Otherwise it would be immoral for the supreme Court to change the law to begin with. You're using the phrase as a code to obfuscate what is actually occurring.

I mean, the law does enforce violence. It is definitely violence to force a woman to birth an ectopic pregnancy. I consider their present consideration of law change to be very immoral.