This Is My Very Point About Recent Supreme Court Case

[Independent thinker]

A restraining order is grounds you are a threat

So? If this guy is the threat you say he is, a piece of paper is not going to protect the person.

 

[martybegan]

Absolutely not

These bans are issued while the domestic threat is recent and tempers are still hot
The couple needs a cooling off period without guns in the equation

So will the police provide protection from the disarmed unconvicted person while the process plays out?

Will the judge be prosecuted if the person disarmed is killed or injured in a home invasion while disarmed?

 

[Independent thinker]

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

It is liberal judges who have him running around loose.

 

[Crepitus]

Things like this

YOu mean other lunatics who shouldn't have guns?

This is the kind of circular argument that is your specialty.

Don't make me say it.

 

[Independent thinker]

Another day, another retard.

Again, it is Thomas and the other idiot Conservative judges who are allowing him to have his guns.

What part of that don’t you get?

Again, it is liberal judges who let dangerous people run around loose.

 

[rightwinger]

And people are foolish if they think a restraining order is going to protect them. How many women have been killed by the person they put an order on? A piece of paper ain't worth shit in the first place.

Question to all…

How many gun owners have been killed during the time their weapons were taken away because of domestic violence ?

 

[g5000]

My point is we don't need more gun control.

And yet those advanced countries which have stricter gun control laws have far lower homicide rates.

Hmmm...

 

[Independent thinker]

But we obviously do need more gun control if this whack-job is any example.

Uncle Clarence set an embarrassingly low standard for gun ownership in the opinion mention in the article, basically throwing everyone one of us under the bus as far as keeping them pout of the hands of people who demonstrably don't deserve them.

But hey, when you elect clowns you get a circus, same when you put them on the so-called supreme court.

Why don't we keep known dangerous people locked up and then see how it goes? We haven't even tried.

 

[rightwinger]

Again, it is liberal judges who let dangerous people run around loose.

Like those accused of domestic violence ?

 

[g5000]

The people I blame most for our nation's ridiculously high homicide rate are the gun makers and the NRA.

They are no different than the drug companies which created the opioid crisis by making more pills than they knew there was a legitimate demand for.

 

[martybegan]

YOu mean other lunatics who shouldn't have guns?

This is the kind of circular argument that is your specialty.

Don't make me say it.

So anyone getting a restraining order against them is automatically guilty?

 

[Independent thinker]

The judge will decide whether your gun is a bigger threat to your spouse or to some bad guy

You mean the liberal judge who thinks we lock too many people up and doesn't want to lock up any more blacks than their population percent?

 

[Crepitus]

Why don't we keep known dangerous people locked up and then see how it goes? We haven't even tried.

Actually CLinton tried that back in the 80's. Didn't work out well.

 

[Independent thinker]

How about we let voting rights or abortion rights be decided the same way?

Ouch. I can't wait to see him squirm out of that question.

 

[task0778]

Zackey Rahimi had been subject to a domestic violence restraining order in Texas in 2019 after threatening to shoot his girlfriend after physically assaulting her. After a Texas court entered a domestic violence restraining order against Rahimi, he was a suspect in multiple shootings, and police officers found firearms in his apartment. He pleaded guilty to violating the ban on firearms for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders and was sentenced to prison. In July, he wrote a letter from behind bars, apologizing for his actions and saying he would no longer carry a gun, according to the New York Times.

United States v. Rahimi comes to the Supreme Court following a lower court ruling earlier this year that ruled the government cannot take firearms away from people in Rahimi’s position.

The stakes of Rahimi’s case pit the safety of domestic violence victims against the nation’s broad Second Amendment rights. Advocates for victims of domestic violence say the fifth circuit’s decision overlooks public health evidence. An abused woman is five times more likely to be killed by a male partner when there is a firearm in the house, according to a widely-cited 2003 study published in the American Journal of Public Health. “Dangerous people or people with histories of violence should not have access to firearms,” says Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action. The effects go beyond the home, she notes, pointing out that many mass shooters end up killing their current or former intimate partner as “part of their rampage.”

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Some Domestic Abusers Can Have Guns

What to know about the case United States v. Rahimi.

time.com

"He pleaded guilty to violating the ban on firearms for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders and was sentenced to prison." That is a crime, no? He is a convicted criminal. Seems to me that this why we have the national background checks so guys like this can't acquire a gun and should not be allowed to possess because he violated the DV restraining order. I am a gun rights guy myself, but you can't allow guys like this free rein to terrorize people and eventually shoot someone. Every constitutional right we have is limited in some way, and so is the 2nd Amendment. That is why you cannot own a bazooka or an automatic weapon. It seems to me that local and state laws ought to be able to specify the conditions under which a citizen might lose their 2nd Amendment rights, at least in DV cases.

 

[rightwinger]

So will the police provide protection from the disarmed unconvicted person while the process plays out?

Will the judge be prosecuted if the person disarmed is killed or injured in a home invasion while disarmed?

Protection from what?

Can you point to any case where someone who had their guns taken away because of domestic violence was killed?
Can you show a home invasion of someone who had his guns taken away?

It doesn’t happen

 

[Independent thinker]

YOu mean other lunatics who shouldn't have guns?

This is the kind of circular argument that is your specialty.

Don't make me say it.

Well, that is the point. The person in the OP shouldn't be running around loose and neither should other criminals.

 

[Crepitus]

So anyone getting a restraining order against them is automatically guilty?

Go back and reread the OP. This nut-job is the poster child for "shouldn't have guns".

And judges don't hand these things lout like party favors either.

Then there's the fact that this guy being subjected to a home invasion at just the wrong time ar so vanishingly small that your whole point is just patiently ridiculous.

 

[Independent thinker]

Question to all…

How many gun owners have been killed during the time their weapons were taken away because of domestic violence ?

Idiot, the point is, if this person is so much of a legitimate threat to someone then they shouldn't be running around loose.

 

[Independent thinker]

And yet those advanced countries which have stricter gun control laws have far lower homicide rates.

Hmmm...

We as a country need to own up to the fact that we have a lot of people who need to be incarcerated, no matter what the incarceration rate is. If we locked up 33% of the population the other 67% could live much more happier and safer lives and in peace, with guns if they want. We're too proud to admit that 33% of Americans are scumbags who should be locked up.