Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms anymore | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
Texas defendant challenging federal gun law at the Supreme Court says he doesn’t want firearms any more

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.”

  • blazera@kbin.social
    82·
    1 year ago

    Stick your fingers in your ears and yell as loud as you want, its not gonna make the well regulated portion go away.

    Not even beginning to mention the founders intentions of the constitution evolving over time, as the lethality, proliferation, and criminal usage of guns has skyrocketed since that amendment was written.

    • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      27·
      1 year ago

      At least some of the founders had the intention of the second amendment allowing the population to overthrow tyrannical rulers.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
            1·
            1 year ago

            Since we're ignoring morality and effectiveness in favor of semantics and self-centredness, I propose that "arms" meant literal arms, attached to your body.

            After all, you can't have a well regulated militia full of double amputees.

          • blazera@kbin.social
            33·
            1 year ago

            Right, civilians with fighter jets and stealth bombers.

            We arent talking about law in other countries, the second amendment only pertains to the US. So it would only pertain to you going to war with the US military and police force.

            • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              13·
              1 year ago

              Right, civilians with fighter jets and stealth bombers.

              Yes.

              I wasn't talking about laws in other countries. I was talking about armed rebellions that beat the US. You know the country with planes, bombers, tanks, and whatnot.

                  • blazera@kbin.social
                    11·
                    1 year ago

                    no, see you've gone onto overthrowing the US government as a justification for the second amendment, and used the Vietnam War as an example of guns defeating the US. But they didn't overthrow the US government, they never tried to or got anywhere in the vicinity of it. The US suffered embarrassingly high casualties, but Vietnamese got slaughtered, and US military left after massive pushback from US voters, not from an inability to continue

                    It was not the scenario of a US dictatorship being risen against. If that scenario were ever to happen, it's entirely gonna hinge on the loyalty of the military, whether or not they'd go to war against US citizens. It doesn't matter if they're armed or not.