DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus United States vs Rahimi (22-915)

United States vs Rahimi (22-915) was granted cert.

This could be an interesting litmus test on where the court stands on their view on who the second applies to.

I think they should be allowed to ban stalkers and domestic violence people from having guns while under probation.

They should go a lot further than that IMO. Maybe an IQ qualifier and a mandatory psyche evaluation before being allowed to purchase. It’s become apparent that stupid people who will fall for any lie should not be toting weapons around.

Rahimi, not surprisingly, lost 8-1. Robert's with the opinion with only ThoMas dissenting. Should make a good read these weekend.

So you haven't read this then. Hmmm... not surprising.

One of the biggest take aways from the majority is that the test is text, history and tradition.

Yes, history as was written when people had single shot musket rifles and pistols. But never mind any of that.

Covered in the document.

Go off to Giffords now and get your panic fix.

Go anywhere you can get a reality check. I think those are now available at your local Home Depot location.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in the revolutionary war, wasn't there this thing called a Gatling gun?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in the revolutionary war, wasn't there this thing called a Gatling gun?

Edited: maybe that was the civil war.

Not unless you think the Revolutionary War was still going on in 1862 when the Gatling gun was invented. I think you mistook it for the Civil War.

The court has been very clear that the second amendment “extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” The arguemnts posed are simply straw arguements designed to detract from the idea that someone is unwilling to actually read what the court wrote, even if the outcome is something they would likely agree with.

The panic porn has given him his opinion and he will die before relenting on it.

Yes, the fact that a musket is something completely different than weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes is a straw argument. The fact that they couldn't have even imagined such things has no meaning to you.

Pointing out reality is now what you have coined as panic. I'm almost at the point of feeling pity for you.

Asked and answered: “extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.”

It makes a statement. It doesn't answer the question. There's a difference.

Yes it does make a statement. Statements answer questions. It just isn't the answer you want, that does not invalidate the answer.

The type of weapon was not in question in Rahimi. Possession, specifically possession in the home, was what was in question. This is why it is a straw argument.

Mmm hmmm.....

This was bout anyone with a restraining order for domestic violence among other things having possession of a firearm anywhere. Before they have had a trial or have been found guilty of a crime. I'm surprised you aren't stomping your feet in protest.

Which means "the fact that a musket is something completely different than weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes is a straw argument."

Thank you.. I think it is about your bedtime now.

I see that you advocate ignorance as a legitimate excuse. If we allow ignorance on how much things have changed since 1776 and pretend everything is stagant that's a very primitive way of thinking.

Do you also think we should have medical professionals using leaches for blood letting, killing witches and having cocaine in Coca Cola too?

Let me guess, advances in technology have reversed those crazy things. But guns? Oh guns are different in your world. Major technological advances should be ignored as it pertains to firearms.

So your defense on tossing around straw arguments are more straw arguments.

Let me guess, you aren't carrying a flintlock on your hip when you are out and about.

No, I'm carrying something that the law allows me to carry because the law has lost all faculties of common sense.

I'm Ok with not allowing felons ever own a gun

Do you equate felon with just violent felonies or all felonies?

This issue here is that these people have not been "convicted of anything". A court merely needs to find probable cause to issue a restraining order for domestic violence before any trial is conducted.

I'm all for that until a trial has been conducted to determine their innocence or guilt. Too many women have been killed during that process by their abusers.