Zackey Rahimi, the Texas criminal defendant challenging a federal gun law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, said this summer that he no longer wanted to own firearms and expressed remorse for his actions that got him in trouble with the law.
“I will make sure for sure this time that when I finish my time being incarcerated to stay the faithful, righteous person I am this day, to stay away from all drugs at all times, do probation & parole rightfully, to go to school & have a great career, have a great manufacturing engineering job, to never break any law again, to stay away from the wrong circle, to stay away from all firearms & weapons, & to never be away from my family again,” Rahimi, who is being held at a Fort Worth jail, said in a handwritten letter dated July 25.
He continued: “I had firearms for the right reason in our place to be able to protect my family at all times especially for what we’ve went through in the past but I’ll make sure to do whatever it takes to be able to do everything the right pathway & to be able to come home fast as I can to take care of my family at all times.”
This is always a bizarre argument. Okay sure, it means “well maintained”. Now explain how “well maintained” means “full of morbidly obese men who have zero combat training, wouldn’t follow orders and can’t prove they can even safely handle a gun, let alone do anything useful with it and also they might be suicidal, psychotic or eager to kill a room full of children”.
No army in the world would indiscriminately accept American gun owners just for being American gun owners. Not even shitty militant groups fighting in the lowest GDP countries.
Well I don’t think “no guns for fatties” is a good look tbh, and it seems to be simply mean rather than something “effective” or “useful.” Besides, the militia back then was mostly made up of farmers without military training, but yes, they weren’t “fatties.”
Neither is 70% of mass shooters being legal gun owners or legal gun owners murdering their partners but hey, not hurting their feelings is important too.
So militaries having minimum health requirements is just them being big meanies?
And they were almost entirely worthless until they were rounded up and given that training, which the founding fathers were absolutely aware of when the amendment was written.
Anyway, whatever definition you go with, gun owners are meeting neither.
How many gun owners become mass shooters? Lets see, 333,287,557 people, 50% (generous, it isn’t quite 50 but for easy math) ownership for 166,643,778.5 people owning guns, and I’ll be generous and include gang shootings (because I know the number) at 547 for the year, turns out, 547 is 0.00032824507756826% of 166643778.5, meaning 0.00032824507756826% of gun owners are likely to pull off a mass shooting in any given year. Sure seems like they aren’t the problem to me.
You can’t ban rights from people for physical maladies or differences. Well, you can, or could, before the 13th ammendment but it is a commonly held belief that that was “bad.” Turns out “banning the (blank)” from say “voting,” or “free speech” is “wrong” and so “no guns for cripples and fatties” is also “wrong.” “The military” doesn’t have to take you but they also can’t just kill you for being fat.
Well, Thomas Jefferson is directly quoted as contradicting your opinion, so I’m gonna say he knew better than you the parlance and attitudes of whiskey brewers that just overthrew a government in the 1700s.
Preventable deaths are preventable deaths and the gun laws you fawn over have caused tens of thousands.
Oh, you mean the guy who owned over 600 slaves? What were his thoughts on who should vote and have free speech?
Well I didn’t realize you were one of those “no guns for the blacks” types…
You mean like Jefferson, the slave owner?
Keep working on your awkward manipulation tactics if you want but you’ve already shown open support for the opinions of a man who genuinely believed all the racist things you’re trying to attribute to me.
Just because the definition of “people” needed work doesn’t mean it isn’t good to apply those rights to today’s definition of people and we both know it, the slave owner bit is a deflection to invalidate the argument without attacking the argument but attacking the person delivering it, which is classic ad hominem. Of course I’m not taking your logical fallacies seriously.
You should stick to the talking points the gun lobby gives you. Maybe then you won’t accidentally align your morality with that of a literal slaver while you awkwardly try and call other people racist.
He also fucked a 14 year old when he was nearly 40, so does paedophilia get your thumbs up as well? After all, sexual assault of minors is only a small percentage of sex overall and Jefferson thought it was cool, so you can support it with exactly the same dogshit arguments you use for guns.