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.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    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…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            What’s with this “everything everyone does in life has to be angelic or good ideas they had are entirely invalidated” thing?

            Do you not believe that all men are created equal simply because Jefferson wrote it, and since he and his time were wrong about some things, equality is then actually also wrong? That is such a ridiculous take, of course equality is still good even though it has since been expanded in the past 200yr. Not that I actually think you believe that, I think you know you’re wrong, but yeah Imma do a little trolling and call you racist for it because you’re a dick lol.