Lol check the what?

Someone really commented on my post about disarming convicted domestic abusers saying, "That’s cute, might want to check into the Second Amendment." 🤡

So let’s check into it.

The U.S. Supreme Court already settled this in United States v. Rahimi. In an 8-1 ruling, the Court made it crystal clear: disarming individuals who pose a credible threat of physical violence does NOT violate the Second Amendment. Under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), violent offenders and convicted abusers lose that privilege. Period.

Now let’s address the real elephant in the room: Why are people bending over backward to defend a violent abuser’s right to carry a deadly weapon?

When your immediate, knee-jerk reaction to a domestic violence law is "but what about his gun rights?"—you are telling the world exactly where your priorities lie. An abuser with access to a firearm elevates a victim's risk of homicide by 500%. Defending their access isn't "constitutional activism." It is directly enabling violence against women with zero concern and zero remorse for human life.

No person who has proven they will inflict violence and terror on another human being should ever be permitted to own a weapon that causes fatalities. The law agrees. SCOTUS agrees. It’s time for the internet to catch up.

👇 Drop your thoughts in the comments.

#EndDomesticViolence #ProtectWomen #GunSafety #ConstitutionalLaw #SCOTUS