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.”

  • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    Important parts in bold.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

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

            • blazera@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              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.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                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.

            • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              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.