Shredding of reasonable gun control laws by courts

It is obvious you did not bother to read the decision, while claiming that I am the one who did not read it:

The decision ends with this:



IOW, Rahimi should not have been convicted of illegally owning guns, as the judge concluded he had the right to do that.

As for evidence of his irresponsible use of guns, it is outlined right in that decision, which you did not not read:
Translation, it does not exist
 
I don't need someone to train me. Often times, the trainer has no idea what they are doing.



You do realize that a gun is designed to fire a projectile that can travel hundreds of yards...... How can a man disarm a women when she isn't near him?



You seem to love for people to remain victims.
So a woman should shoot a man who is hundreds of yards away and then try to convince a jury that she was in immediate danger?
 
Because your "solution" only escalates domestic violence and would result in even more women who are victims of domestic violence getting prison sentences or killed.

A better solution is to defang the domestic abuser.
Putting words in people's mouths again?
You can't offer a scintilla of PROOF to support your prediction.
 
nothing but insults
Not true. I also mocked you.
And yes, if people are frightened by the unusual and unexpected appearance of men in their neighborhoods flaunting large guns, they are right to call the police.
But that's not what you said. You said they were brandishing, even though the police said there was no evidence of brandishing.
In a similar case, the police assured the caller that what the man she reported was doing was legal, but then he randomly shot 3 people.
But we're not talking about "a similar case". We're talking about a claim you made about one, specific case.
 
First, who decides what is sufficient "training"?

Second, how do you know they won't pursue training on their own?

Third, why should there be requirements on a right? If there are restrictions on a right, it's no longer a right, but a privilege.

Possibly. Or possibly, she might be able to defend herself and not be beaten to death.

Shouldn't she at least have the right to try to defend herself?

And, once again, you're making claims, insisting "statistics show", but can't seem to produce those "statistics".

Not at all. Remember, I'm the one who wants the woman to be able to defend herself. You're the one who says she should not have the means to defend herself.
Statistics:


 
So a woman should shoot a man who is hundreds of yards away and then try to convince a jury that she was in immediate danger?

No. She can shot him when he enters her home or threatens her with violence. That usually isn't "hundreds of yards" away.

Do you recognize sarcasm when you see it???? Point being.... A women with a gun can easily kill a man that is threatening her. She just needs to be confident and pull the trigger. Don't hesitate.

Are you a victim and want everyone else to be one too?
 
My understanding is that restraining orders are issued by judges based on available evidence.
But a PRO is only an emergency injunction that only prohibits a person from being in a specific place for a specific time. It does not give the courts the right to go around the Constitution and deny due process.

In order for a person's firearms to be confiscated, there would still have to be a hearing where charges are brought and the defendant has the opportunity to defend himself.
 
I notice you're still too cowardly or ignorant (or, probably, both) to answer my questions.
Statistics:

Literally not one word to back up your claim. All it does is define domestic abuse and give statistics about who is abused.

It doesn't even mention firearms.
Again, nothing here to back up your claim.

And, again, firearms aren't even mentioned.
 
Abortion is peddled under the pretense that the poor mom means the baby will never have "opportunity"

"The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Sanger founder of Planned parenthood.
Ew. That’s disgusting
 
No. She can shot him when he enters her home or threatens her with violence. That usually isn't "hundreds of yards" away.

Do you recognize sarcasm when you see it???? Point being.... A women with a gun can easily kill a man that is threatening her. She just needs to be confident and pull the trigger. Don't hesitate.

Are you a victim and want everyone else to be one too?
Really. If he just enters her home she can shoot him?
I though breaking and entering was not justification for shooting (see threads on Ashli Babbitt)

Sure, and after she confidently shoots the guy, the cops will arrest her and she will have a nice long prison sentence.

The woman is a victim if she has a gun and uses it, or if she doesn't and he kills or maims her.
 
Really. If he just enters her home she can shoot him?
If she has a PRO against him, then the law assumes he is entering her home to harm her.
I though breaking and entering was not justification for shooting (see threads on Ashli Babbitt)
Depends on the state. Many states have what is known as "Castle Doctrine", which I'll let your mom and dad explain to you.
Sure, and after she confidently shoots the guy, the cops will arrest her and she will have a nice long prison sentence.
How do you know? What's your evidence that she broke the law?
The woman is a victim if she has a gun and uses it, or if she doesn't and he kills or maims her.
Only in the straw man argument you've created.
 
Back
Top