ICE Barbie

[BrokeLoser]

Um, while you're up there on your hypocritical high horse, I'll remind you those sheriffs who were not enforcing the totally constitutional red flag laws were protecting wife beaters.

THEY were fucking Americans over.

Dipshit.

Hahaha…you’re still confused by “shall not be infringed”

 

[g5000]

Hahaha…you’re still confused by “shall not be infringed”

Hahaha...you're exposing your ignorance.

The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that red flag laws are constitutional.

Eight

to

One.

As you know...this means almost all the Republican judges decided stopping assholes who beat their wives from having access to guns is a fucking good and constitutional idea.

But you are all for gun-toting wife beaters. You don't believe in protecting Americans.

Color me totally unsurprised at your ignorance and hypocrisy.

 

[Care4all]

The "puppy" was worthless as a hunting dog and ravaged two of her neighbor's chickens who were relying on for eggs. Quit lying.

Bull shit. She should have turned him over to a shelter for some family to love the 14 month old puppy.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Hahaha...you're exposing your ignorance.

The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that red flag laws are constitutional.

Eight

to

One.

As you know...this means almost all the Republican judges decided stopping assholes who beat their wives from having access to guns is fucking good and constitutional idea.

But you are all for gun-toting wife beaters. You don't believe in protecting Americans.

Color me totally unsurprised at your ignorance and hypocrisy.

You should do some due diligence before popping of at the mouth there super lib…the SCOTUS ruling reads that an individual who poses a clear threat of violence may be temporarily disarmed after a judicial finding of dangerousness. The ruling was no endorsement of the “red flag laws” you freedom haters have pushed.

 

[g5000]

Hahaha…you’re still confused by “shall not be infringed”

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

So this means we can shout 'FIRE!" in a crowded theater, right? We can incite a riot, right? We can threaten someone with bodily harm, right? Perverts can publish child porn, right?

You see, our Founders made the foolish mistake of thinking people like you would have some common fucking sense.

They seriously misunderstood common sense is not so common.

But at least eight of our Supreme Court justices had the common sense to see banning a wife beating asshole from having access to guns is a damned good common sense plan, and entirely within constitutional limits.

 

[g5000]

You should do some due diligence before popping of at the mouth there super lib…the SCOTUS ruling reads that an individual who poses a clear threat of violence may be temporarily disarmed after a judicial finding of dangerousness. The ruling was no endorsement of the “red flag laws” you freedom haters have pushed.

Is a wife beater a clear threat or not, fool?

 

[g5000]

You should do some due diligence before popping of at the mouth there super the SCOTUS ruling reads that an individual who poses a clear threat of violence may be temporarily disarmed after a judicial finding of dangerousness. The ruling was no endorsement of the “red flag laws” you freedom haters have pushed.

Your "due diligence" involved parroting the NRA's propaganda after the Rahimi decision.

They pumped a truckload of bullshit about it.

Here's a direct quote from the ruling:

When a restraining order contains a finding that an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner, that individual may—consistent with the Second Amendment—be banned from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition.


Eight

to

One.


"an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner"

A wife beater. That's who you want to "protect" at the expense of their victims.

Always go to the source, man. Not biased, lying assholes like the NRA with an agenda.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I'll he didn't bite 24 people like Biden's dog did! What a responsible dog owner, let all those people be attacked before you do something. You know animal control ended up killing that dog, but Biden handled his dog "the right way". PFFFFFFFT

When Biden got that dog he didn't bite anyone. That's why they got that dog. It replaced another dog that bit several people. Something in the way Biden treated those dogs turned them from family dogs into vicious animals.

 

[WEATHER53]

When Biden got that dog he didn't bite anyone. That's why they got that dog. It replaced another dog that bit several people. Something in the way Biden treated those dogs turned them from family dogs into vicious animals.

Too many showers together

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Too many showers together

He liked to pull on dog's tails and drag them around. He broke his ankle while nude he was chasing a dog through the white house trying to grab its tail.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Bull shit. She should have turned him over to a shelter for some family to love the 14 month old puppy.

Not if the dog was vicious and bit people. Even shelters put them down. If a shelter allows adoption of a dog known to bite, that shelter is on the hook for any and all damages.

 

[Care4all]

Not if the dog was vicious and bit people. Even shelters put them down. If a shelter allows adoption of a dog known to bite, that shelter is on the hook for any and all damages.

It did not bite people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sadly for you, the Supremes ruled 8 to 1 that red flag laws are constitutional.

Eight

to

One.

That means even Republican judges were cool with it.

So you are seriously wrong. You let yourself make shit up.

Now, I ask again. How DO they stand the stench of their own hypocrisy?

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

Grok:

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision has significant implications for red flag laws due to the new legal framework it established for evaluating Second Amendment challenges:

Relevance to Red Flag Laws:

1. Historical Test for Constitutionality:
   • New Standard: Post-Bruen, courts must assess whether modern gun laws, including red flag laws, are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States. This means that red flag laws must be compared to historical analogues from the time of the founding or shortly thereafter.
   • Challenge for Red Flag Laws: Red flag laws, which allow for temporary firearm seizure based on concerns about an individual's dangerousness, do not have clear historical parallels from the founding era. This could make it harder for courts to uphold these laws under the Bruen framework, as they might not align with historical practices regarding firearm removal.
2. Due Process Considerations:
   • Ex Parte Orders: Red flag laws often involve ex parte orders where firearms can be seized before the gun owner has a chance to respond in court. Bruen's focus on historical consistency might lead to scrutiny over whether such procedures were common in the 18th or 19th centuries.
   • Due Process: While Bruen doesn't directly address due process, its aftermath has heightened awareness of procedural protections. Red flag laws are now being examined more closely for compliance with due process, ensuring individuals have prompt opportunities to contest gun seizures.

 

[Lisa558]

Deporting illegals certainly seems to have the left upset

All those future votes down the drain…..

 

[Crepitus]

As long as our puppies are safe

 

[Crepitus]

Perhaps because they are unconstitutional

Except they they weren't.

 

[g5000]

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

Grok:

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision has significant implications for red flag laws due to the new legal framework it established for evaluating Second Amendment challenges:

Relevance to Red Flag Laws:

1. Historical Test for Constitutionality:
   • New Standard: Post-Bruen, courts must assess whether modern gun laws, including red flag laws, are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States. This means that red flag laws must be compared to historical analogues from the time of the founding or shortly thereafter.
   • Challenge for Red Flag Laws: Red flag laws, which allow for temporary firearm seizure based on concerns about an individual's dangerousness, do not have clear historical parallels from the founding era. This could make it harder for courts to uphold these laws under the Bruen framework, as they might not align with historical practices regarding firearm removal.
2. Due Process Considerations:
   • Ex Parte Orders: Red flag laws often involve ex parte orders where firearms can be seized before the gun owner has a chance to respond in court. Bruen's focus on historical consistency might lead to scrutiny over whether such procedures were common in the 18th or 19th centuries.
   • Due Process: While Bruen doesn't directly address due process, its aftermath has heightened awareness of procedural protections. Red flag laws are now being examined more closely for compliance with due process, ensuring individuals have prompt opportunities to contest gun seizures.

Grok this: The Rahimi 8-to-1 decision about red flag laws was in 2024.

Eight

to

One.

 

[Crepitus]

And you say this with absolutely no sense of irony or self-awareness.

Wow.

That one isn't really self-aware at all.

He/she would fail a Turing test miserably.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

"Talk to any farmer, and they'll tell you it's difficult work."

"Their livelihoods depend on a reliable workforce."

"The USDA department estimates 42 percent of farm workers are undocumented workers."

^^^ Democrats be like, if you take our slaves away, who will do the slave labor for slave wages under the table?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Grok this: The Rahimi 8-to-1 decision about red flag laws was in 2024.

Eight

to

One.

Barring domestic violence offenders from owning firearms. Provided such laws are narrowly and specifically tailored to the danger and not a blanket ban on second amendment rights.

Which I'm sure you didn't interpret that as.

Red flag laws that infringe on the second amendment rights of everyone are still unconstitutional.

Grok:

The ruling in United States v. Rahimi should not be interpreted as:

1. A Blanket Approval of All Red Flag Laws: The decision is specific to the context of domestic violence restraining orders where there's a clear and credible threat to physical safety. It does not automatically validate all forms or implementations of red flag laws without due process considerations or without a similar level of specificity regarding the threat.
2. An Endorsement of Unchecked Government Power: This ruling does not give carte blanche to the government to disarm citizens without due cause or due process. The decision is careful to balance Second Amendment rights with public safety concerns, not to override the right to bear arms indiscriminately.
3. A Rejection of Historical Analysis: While Rahimi moved away from the strict historical analog test from Bruen, it does not completely reject the importance of historical context in Second Amendment cases. Instead, it suggests that historical analysis should not be the only factor and that modern societal needs can also be considered.
4. A Reduction in the Importance of the Second Amendment: This ruling should not be seen as diminishing the Second Amendment's protections. Rather, it clarifies that these rights are not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation in extreme circumstances.
5. An Automatic Precedent for All Future Gun Control Laws: Each new law or regulation would still need to be examined on its own merits, with consideration of the legal principles established by Rahimi, including due process, specificity of threat, and whether the regulation is narrowly tailored.
6. A Decision That Ignores Due Process: The ruling implicitly emphasizes the need for due process in the application of red flag laws, ensuring that individuals have the right to challenge the basis of such orders before being disarmed.
7. A Universal Solution to Gun Violence: While it addresses one aspect of gun regulation in the context of domestic violence, it should not be viewed as a comprehensive solution to broader issues of gun violence or control.

Understanding these points helps in interpreting the Rahimi decision in its intended scope and legal context, avoiding broader, potentially misleading interpretations.