Common Sense Gun Laws

[Anonymous]

2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

We get it. You only want the police (who you also want to defund) to have gus which means you want to live in a police state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

We get it. You only want the police (who you also want to defund) to have gus which means you want to live in a police state.

We get it. You want to live in a vigilante state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

We get it. You only want the police (who you also want to defund) to have gus which means you want to live in a police state.

We get it. You want to live in a vigilante state.

The "we get it, you want a police state" response completely missed the point. COMPLETELY.

Rahimi isn't even a vigilante. He is the aggressor. He is a thug and a bully who shoots at anyone who crosses his path. THAT is what the 2A advocates "get" and that is what they are all about. They want to be allowed to inflict their road rage on others with their Glock, they want to be allowed to shoot at Starbucks with their AR-15 for not having coffee cups that are "christmassy enough" for their liking. At this point, 2A advocates are openly and directly defending homicidal, sociopathic lunatics. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

We get it. You only want the police (who you also want to defund) to have gus which means you want to live in a police state.

We get it. You want to live in a vigilante state.

The "we get it, you want a police state" response completely missed the point. COMPLETELY.

Rahimi isn't even a vigilante. He is the aggressor. He is a thug and a bully who shoots at anyone who crosses his path. THAT is what the 2A advocates "get" and that is what they are all about. They want to be allowed to inflict their road rage on others with their Glock, they want to be allowed to shoot at Starbucks with their AR-15 for not having coffee cups that are "christmassy enough" for their liking. At this point, 2A advocates are openly and directly defending homicidal, sociopathic lunatics. Period.

You are missing the problems with the judicial process to date and the subtlety involved. The court will rule that Rhami should have had his weapons taken away when charged with the actual crimes he committed, not based on the restraining order.

[Anonymous]

WTF

[Anonymous]

The Supre me Cou rt of the United States received and docke ted an emergency application seeking an inju nction against enforc ement of Illinois’ “as sault weapons” b a n while the appe al process is on going.

[Anonymous]

The emergency application is for Natio*nal Asso*ciation for G*un Ri*ghts v. City of Naper*ville, Illinois, No. 23A486 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Anonymous]

Why is this site blocking simple words constantly? You can't even express ideas here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

We get it. You only want the police (who you also want to defund) to have gus which means you want to live in a police state.

We get it. You want to live in a vigilante state.

The "we get it, you want a police state" response completely missed the point. COMPLETELY.

Rahimi isn't even a vigilante. He is the aggressor. He is a thug and a bully who shoots at anyone who crosses his path. THAT is what the 2A advocates "get" and that is what they are all about. They want to be allowed to inflict their road rage on others with their Glock, they want to be allowed to shoot at Starbucks with their AR-15 for not having coffee cups that are "christmassy enough" for their liking. At this point, 2A advocates are openly and directly defending homicidal, sociopathic lunatics. Period.

You are missing the problems with the judicial process to date and the subtlety involved. The court will rule that Rhami should have had his weapons taken away when charged with the actual crimes he committed, not based on the restraining order.

We need to remove the subtlety. Guns need to be removed in EITHER case. Either when charged, or when a restraining order is issued. This country is chock full of thousands of examples where there was domestic violence, with a restraining order issued, but guns not removed, only to result in wife/girlfriend shot and killed, or domestic violence, no restraining order, but also no charges pursued by prosecutor, or more serious charges plead down, no restraining order issued, also resulting in wife/girlfriend shot and killed. There needs to be a hard red line - if you are violent, if you threaten violence, if you show any sign of bad judgement or dangerous behavior whatsoever, you lose your right to own a gun. Period. Zero subtlety. Fix it. This is NOT "common sense." The ONLY type of exception that could ever be considered should be in a clear case where it can be proven the individual was not the aggressor or instigator, and was purely acting in provably earnest and legitimate self-defence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

We get it. You only want the police (who you also want to defund) to have gus which means you want to live in a police state.

We get it. You want to live in a vigilante state.

The "we get it, you want a police state" response completely missed the point. COMPLETELY.

Rahimi isn't even a vigilante. He is the aggressor. He is a thug and a bully who shoots at anyone who crosses his path. THAT is what the 2A advocates "get" and that is what they are all about. They want to be allowed to inflict their road rage on others with their Glock, they want to be allowed to shoot at Starbucks with their AR-15 for not having coffee cups that are "christmassy enough" for their liking. At this point, 2A advocates are openly and directly defending homicidal, sociopathic lunatics. Period.

You are missing the problems with the judicial process to date and the subtlety involved. The court will rule that Rhami should have had his weapons taken away when charged with the actual crimes he committed, not based on the restraining order.

We need to remove the subtlety. Guns need to be removed in EITHER case. Either when charged, or when a restraining order is issued. This country is chock full of thousands of examples where there was domestic violence, with a restraining order issued, but guns not removed, only to result in wife/girlfriend shot and killed, or domestic violence, no restraining order, but also no charges pursued by prosecutor, or more serious charges plead down, no restraining order issued, also resulting in wife/girlfriend shot and killed. There needs to be a hard red line - if you are violent, if you threaten violence, if you show any sign of bad judgement or dangerous behavior whatsoever, you lose your right to own a gun. Period. Zero subtlety. Fix it. This is NOT "common sense." The ONLY type of exception that could ever be considered should be in a clear case where it can be proven the individual was not the aggressor or instigator, and was purely acting in provably earnest and legitimate self-defence.

If you show any signs of bad judgement? That's half the country! Just look at democrats.

[Anonymous]

Yes, take away the guns from all the democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

We get it. You only want the police (who you also want to defund) to have gus which means you want to live in a police state.

We get it. You want to live in a vigilante state.

The "we get it, you want a police state" response completely missed the point. COMPLETELY.

Rahimi isn't even a vigilante. He is the aggressor. He is a thug and a bully who shoots at anyone who crosses his path. THAT is what the 2A advocates "get" and that is what they are all about. They want to be allowed to inflict their road rage on others with their Glock, they want to be allowed to shoot at Starbucks with their AR-15 for not having coffee cups that are "christmassy enough" for their liking. At this point, 2A advocates are openly and directly defending homicidal, sociopathic lunatics. Period.

You are missing the problems with the judicial process to date and the subtlety involved. The court will rule that Rhami should have had his weapons taken away when charged with the actual crimes he committed, not based on the restraining order.

We need to remove the subtlety. Guns need to be removed in EITHER case. Either when charged, or when a restraining order is issued. This country is chock full of thousands of examples where there was domestic violence, with a restraining order issued, but guns not removed, only to result in wife/girlfriend shot and killed, or domestic violence, no restraining order, but also no charges pursued by prosecutor, or more serious charges plead down, no restraining order issued, also resulting in wife/girlfriend shot and killed. There needs to be a hard red line - if you are violent, if you threaten violence, if you show any sign of bad judgement or dangerous behavior whatsoever, you lose your right to own a gun. Period. Zero subtlety. Fix it. This is NOT "common sense." The ONLY type of exception that could ever be considered should be in a clear case where it can be proven the individual was not the aggressor or instigator, and was purely acting in provably earnest and legitimate self-defence.

If you show any signs of bad judgement? That's half the country! Just look at democrats.

Easily half (or more) of the current gun-owning American populace should not own guns. Face it, that's just a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, take away the guns from all the democrats.

Dumb take - it's not Democrats rallying behind lunatics like Zacky Rahimi to make sure he can continue to own a gun when he clearly shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2A advocates: "The laws we have are fine and already are common sense. We need to stick with what we have and enforce the laws already on the books."

The reality of what the current laws are that people like this are not only being allowed to own guns but 2A advocacy groups including the NRA are dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into his legal defense and arguing his case all the way up to the Supreme Court:

In December 2019, Rahimi got into an argument with his then-girlfriend, with whom he shares a child, and allegedly assaulted her in a parking lot. He was accused of firing a gun at a bystander who tried to intervene; when the woman escaped, he also threatened to shoot her if she told anyone about the incident, according to court records.

A judge placed Rahimi under a domestic-violence restraining order and banned him from possessing guns in February 2020. He violated the restraining order on two occasions, and police say Rahimi was involved in five separate shootings over the next three months, including firing an AR-15 at someone’s home over social-media comments; shooting at a driver in a road-rage incident; firing his gun outside a fast-food restaurant after a friend’s credit card was declined; shooting a police car; and firing his gun in front of children in a residential neighborhood. Separately, he was charged with aggravated assault after allegedly threatening a different woman with a gun in November 2020.

If you weren't aware that this kind of insane lunacy is what your 2A advocacy is all about, then you need to wake up. You are protecting, enabling and empowering complete lunatics.

We get it. You only want the police (who you also want to defund) to have gus which means you want to live in a police state.

We get it. You want to live in a vigilante state.

The "we get it, you want a police state" response completely missed the point. COMPLETELY.

Rahimi isn't even a vigilante. He is the aggressor. He is a thug and a bully who shoots at anyone who crosses his path. THAT is what the 2A advocates "get" and that is what they are all about. They want to be allowed to inflict their road rage on others with their Glock, they want to be allowed to shoot at Starbucks with their AR-15 for not having coffee cups that are "christmassy enough" for their liking. At this point, 2A advocates are openly and directly defending homicidal, sociopathic lunatics. Period.

Who do you believe should be allowed to own guns in the US?