This Is My Very Point About Recent Supreme Court Case

[Independentthinker]

For Zackey Rahimi, the solution for just about every problem in life seems to be to shoot a gun in its general direction. In December 2019, he fired a shot at a bystander who’d seen him shove his girlfriend in a parking lot, then threatened to shoot his girlfriend too if she told anyone about it. When an acquaintance posted something rude about him on social media, he fired an AR-15 into their house. When he got into a car accident, he shot at the other driver; when a truck flashed its lights at him on the highway, he followed the driver off the exit and, for some reason, shot at a different car that was behind the offending truck. After Rahimi’s friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger, Rahimi pulled out a gun and fired several shots into the air, a choice that I doubt made terrified employees any more inclined to fulfill his order.

My point is we don't need more gun control. Why is this guy running around loose? How stupid can we get? And, if you change gun control laws, this guy will get a gun anyway, that is if he's loose, which he shouldn't be.

The Supreme Court’s Big Gun Case Was Humiliating for the Justices

Zackey Rahimi has not demonstrated an ability to safely possess firearms.

www.yahoo.com

 

[BackAgain]

Guns don’t fire themselves.

And I don’t believe that our 2d Amendment demands that such a menace be allowed to possess any firearm.

 

[rightwinger]

For Zackey Rahimi, the solution for just about every problem in life seems to be to shoot a gun in its general direction. In December 2019, he fired a shot at a bystander who’d seen him shove his girlfriend in a parking lot, then threatened to shoot his girlfriend too if she told anyone about it. When an acquaintance posted something rude about him on social media, he fired an AR-15 into their house. When he got into a car accident, he shot at the other driver; when a truck flashed its lights at him on the highway, he followed the driver off the exit and, for some reason, shot at a different car that was behind the offending truck. After Rahimi’s friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger, Rahimi pulled out a gun and fired several shots into the air, a choice that I doubt made terrified employees any more inclined to fulfill his order.

My point is we don't need more gun control. Why is this guy running around loose? How stupid can we get? And, if you change gun control laws, this guy will get a gun anyway, that is if he's loose, which he shouldn't be.

The Supreme Court’s Big Gun Case Was Humiliating for the Justices

Zackey Rahimi has not demonstrated an ability to safely possess firearms.

www.yahoo.com

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

 

[BackAgain]

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

You have a right to your personal freedom, too. That doesn’t make it unconstitutional to put you in prison.

If you can legally and Constitutionally be deprived of your freedom, then there is even less reason to assume you cannot also be denied your “right” to possess a gun under certain specific circumstances.

 

[rightwinger]

This guy is obviously practicing to be part of a well regulated militia

 

[Lord-Humungus]

When we have a president that has previously given such great advice as to shoot through a door out out of a window at a random noise what do you expect? Stupid runs from the top down.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes we all know there are some bad people in the world but do we take away the rights of all people because of it?

I have no culpability in any crimes committed by anyone and the idea that restricting the rights of people who are not guilty of any crimes will somehow stop criminals from committing crimes is beyond stupid

 

[rightwinger]

Yes we all know there are some bad people in the world but do we take away the rights of all people because of it?

I have no culpability in any crimes committed by anyone and the idea that restricting the rights of people who are not guilty of any crimes will somehow stop criminals from committing crimes is beyond stupid

Not all people
Only those subject to a restraining order for domestic violence

 

[Rawley]

Guns don’t fire themselves.

And I don’t believe that our 2d Amendment demands that such a menace be allowed to possess any firearm.

Fundamental question is why this asshole hasn't been put away long ago?

 

[martybegan]

Guns don’t fire themselves.

And I don’t believe that our 2d Amendment demands that such a menace be allowed to possess any firearm.

This issue is stopping someone like that requires the government to do its job, not just posture by "banning" certain guns and pretending that will do the trick.

 

[Blues Man]

Not all people
Only those subject to a restraining order for domestic violence

But not convicted of any crime right?

Restraining orders have been weaponized and are usually granted carte blanche

 

[rightwinger]

But not convicted of any crime right?

Restraining orders have been weaponized and are usually granted carte blanche

You are given your day in court to contest the restraining order

A judge will decide whether you are more likely to use your gun to shoot your spouse or to defend yourself against bad guys

 

[BackAgain]

This issue is stopping someone like that requires the government to do its job, not just posture by "banning" certain guns and pretending that will do the trick.

I have no dispute with that. The government has no authority to ban guns. But it doesn’t follow that it can’t deny a person of his right to possess a gun if certain conditions are met.

For example, a person convicted of a felony is often barred from possessing a a gun. No Constitutional violation inherent in that.

 

[martybegan]

I have no dispute with that. The government has no authority to ban guns. But it doesn’t follow that it can’t deny a person of his right to possess a gun if certain conditions are met.

For example, a person convicted of a felony is often barred from possessing a a gun. No Constitutional violation inherent in that.

The issue is if a restraining order is enough due process to remove a person's guns from their possession.

And of course, the left's need to mutate the process to be abused by gun grabbers.

 

[Magnus]

For Zackey Rahimi, the solution for just about every problem in life seems to be to shoot a gun in its general direction. In December 2019, he fired a shot at a bystander who’d seen him shove his girlfriend in a parking lot, then threatened to shoot his girlfriend too if she told anyone about it. When an acquaintance posted something rude about him on social media, he fired an AR-15 into their house. When he got into a car accident, he shot at the other driver; when a truck flashed its lights at him on the highway, he followed the driver off the exit and, for some reason, shot at a different car that was behind the offending truck. After Rahimi’s friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger, Rahimi pulled out a gun and fired several shots into the air, a choice that I doubt made terrified employees any more inclined to fulfill his order.

My point is we don't need more gun control. Why is this guy running around loose? How stupid can we get? And, if you change gun control laws, this guy will get a gun anyway, that is if he's loose, which he shouldn't be.

The Supreme Court’s Big Gun Case Was Humiliating for the Justices

Zackey Rahimi has not demonstrated an ability to safely possess firearms.

www.yahoo.com

He is not running loose.
Mr. Rahimi remains in the county jail, awaiting the outcome of pending state criminal charges.

Texas Man at Center of Supreme Court Case Says He No Longer Wants Guns

Zackey Rahimi has vowed “to stay away from all firearms and weapons” in a case that could expand gun rights protections, but advocates say he is not an ideal poster boy for the Second Amendment.

www.nytimes.com

 

[rightwinger]

The issue is if a restraining order is enough due process to remove a person's guns from their possession.

And of course, the left's need to mutate the process to be abused by gun grabbers.

A restraining order is grounds you are a threat

 

[westwall]

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

What part of "when you ignore the Rights of others, you LOSE yours" do you not understand?

Dumbass.

 

[westwall]

He is not running loose.
Mr. Rahimi remains in the county jail, awaiting the outcome of pending state criminal charges.

Texas Man at Center of Supreme Court Case Says He No Longer Wants Guns

Zackey Rahimi has vowed “to stay away from all firearms and weapons” in a case that could expand gun rights protections, but advocates say he is not an ideal poster boy for the Second Amendment.

www.nytimes.com

Yeah...FINALLY! How many crimes does a fucking asshole like that need to commit before you fucking imbeciles finally lock a person up!

And, unlike you dimwits, we are happy to throw away the key.

NEVER, EVER let these violent animals out of prison.

 

[Magnus]

Guns don’t fire themselves.

And I don’t believe that our 2d Amendment demands that such a menace be allowed to possess any firearm.

Sure. But you are not a SC justice. Thomas and the other idiot Conservative justices are and their opinions count. From the link:

None of this was in dispute on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over Rahimi’s bid to keep his beloved guns. But it was also not much of a topic of conversation, as Justice Clarence Thomas claimed there existed only a “very thin record” in the case. Despite the court’s inability (or unwillingness) to highlight the horrifying facts of his case, it does seem as if enough conservatives will join the court’s progressives to reject Rahimi’s plea.

A few weeks later, however, the Supreme Court blessed Rahimi with a chance to get his guns back. In an opinion penned by Thomas, the court held, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that restrictions on the right to bear arms are presumptively unconstitutional unless they are, in a judge’s learned opinion, consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The 5th Circuit withdrew its opinion in Rahimi’s case and issued another in which it changed its mind: Although the law embodies “salutary policy goals,” wrote Judge Cory T. Wilson, “our ancestors would never have accepted” it. Put differently, because the Framers did not disarm domestic abusers, who today shoot and kill an average of 70 women a month, modern lawmakers are powerless to do anything about it.


Now, do you see why libs are against these stupid judges?

 

[Magnus]

Yeah...FINALLY! How many crimes does a fucking asshole like that need to commit before you fucking imbeciles finally lock a person up!

And, unlike you dimwits, we are happy to throw away the key.

NEVER, EVER let these violent animals out of prison.

Unlike us? Retard. It is your Conservative judges who are letting him have his guns. Did you even read your own link?