This Is My Very Point About Recent Supreme Court Case

[OKTexas]

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

The real question is why this guy was still on the streets after committing several gun related felonies. Did he commit his crimes in the jurisdiction of Soros funded prosecutors that coddle criminals?

.

 

[Magnus]

Again. No surrender. You can’t even admit that you were beaten thoroughly.

Your dishonesty is enormous, but completely expected. You’re just a libtard after all.

Don’t fret. I wouldn’t expect you to acknowledge how badly you got your ass handed to you. You’re too much of a pussy.

Sure, retard. And next time learn the issue before responding. Will help you look less of a fool. Run along, now. Go play in traffic.

 

[martybegan]

Yes
You are prohibiting them from having firearms

You beat a woman….that is reasonable

That's just semantics. If you prohibit a woman from having an abortion, aren't you banning her from having one?

 

[rightwinger]

That's just semantics. If you prohibit a woman from having an abortion, aren't you banning her from having one?

Nice diversion

Is that the best you got?

 

[martybegan]

Nice diversion

Is that the best you got?

Is semantics the best you have?

Can the man go out and buy a gun? Are his guns taken away from him? All that with no time limit equates banning.

 

[rightwinger]

Is semantics the best you have?

Can the man go out and buy a gun? Are his guns taken away from him? All that with no time limit equates banning.

Felons are banned permanently
Those with a restraining order are banned for the duration of the order

Sounds reasonable

 

[BackAgain]

Sure, retard. And next time learn the issue before responding. Will help you look less of a fool. Run along, now. Go play in traffic.

Your ignorance is compounded by your retardation.

Nothing can be done about your intentional and relentless dishonesty.

Go suck another bag of diseased dicks.

Also, when you post if you stubbornly insist on sharing your dishonest and stupidity, give a little effort to posting ON TOPIC.

The topic here remains SCOTUS opinions about the meaning of our second amendment and the scope of the right.

Just as the 1st Amendment isn’t an absolute, so too the 2d Amendment isn’t an absolute.

 

[martybegan]

Felons are banned permanently
Those with a restraining order are banned for the duration of the order

Sounds reasonable

And if it takes the judge a year to hear the case, how is the person compensated for their loss of rights for that year?

I'd say 50k is about right. out of your pocket, bitch.

 

[rightwinger]

And if it takes the judge a year to hear the case, how is the person compensated for their loss of rights for that year?

I'd say 50k is about right. out of your pocket, bitch.

If he has domestic violence charges over his head, I would say turning in his guns is the least of his problems

I would say possible prison, losing your job, losing your kids and family are bigger concerns

But to Conservatives, temporarily losing his guns are the biggest crisis …..hell with losing his family
What about his guns?

 

[martybegan]

If he has domestic violence charges over his head, I would say turning in his guns is the least of his problems

I would say possible prison, losing your job, losing your kids and family are bigger concerns

But to Conservatives, temporarily losing his guns are the biggest crisis …..hell with losing his family
What about his guns?

Once you set the precedent a mere court order can result in your losing your 2nd amendment rights, look to leftists to expand it beyond domestic violence cases.

What about when the accusation is false?

If it's that important to you, $1000 out of your pocket every time one of these is found to be unwarranted. same for the judge issuing the order, and the prosecutor asking for the order.

 

[Blues Man]

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

No you're actually not. Those can be issued without even notifying the defendant

 

[Blues Man]

A restraining order is grounds you are a threat

Not necessarily.

TROs have been weaponized because they sidestep due process

 

[rightwinger]

No you're actually not. Those can be issued without even notifying the defendant

And you will get to make your case in a court of law
Restraining Orders can be accepted or challenged

 

[Independentthinker]

In most domestic violence cases the aggressor is usually locked up….temporarily
Once they make bail, they are freed under condition of a restraining order. Gun confiscation should also be a condition of bail.

If a person is a know proven danger to society then you don't just lock them up temporarily.

 

[Blues Man]

And you will get to make your case in a court of law
Restraining Orders can be accepted or challenged

No you don't.

A person is not notified of the trial dates and the people making the claims do not have to have actual evidence

 

[Independentthinker]

Because he wasn’t locked up when he shot of those guns. And he appealed to the SC to reverse the lower court decision.

Jeez. Is today a full Moon? Retards are out in full force.

Yes, you are out in full force. How many times should we allow people like this to commit these acts before we lock them up? You want to just let them run around loose all the time and try to keep guns out of their hands. That's what is retarded.

 

[Independentthinker]

Again, retard. Learn to read.

It is liberal judges who have him running around loose.

 

[rightwinger]

No you don't.

A person is not notified of the trial dates and the people making the claims do not have to have actual evidence

You are just making shit up now

 

[Blues Man]

You are just making shit up now

Look up how red flag laws work

 

[Crepitus]

If you're gonna blatantly deny reality we cannot have a discussion. Yes, the reality is people like in the OP should not be running around loose to keep guns away from them.

Have nice day.