Florida man shoots door-to-door salesman dead for 'trespassing'

I never said I had a solution for ALL mentally ill people. I only said those ones who we do know about, should be controlled from buying guns.

 

the ones under doctor's care have probably already been advised, so further legislation means nothing.

 

Already been advised ? What does that mean ? They either can or can't buy a gun, and without the legislation that was recently defeated, they still CAN buy one.

 

if they are sane enough to not need assisted living, then the 2nd amendment applies to them as well

if owning a gun were a privilege like driving a car rather then a right, then they could be denied that privilege

.

 

so, you are in favor of tossing out the Bill of Rights......................

 

I do not think one has the right to deny someone their 2nd amendment rights or their free speech rights

now if your in the custody of a Jail, Prison or a mental institution, you lose that right while in their care, if your released, you regain that right... just as you would gain back the right to free speech

.

 

If you're looking for rational thought from the typical Tray-hugger on this site... you're in for a disappointment.

Like them, this guy is a loon and will deservedly go to prison.

This wasn't a justified shooting like Zimmerman's.

 

Now it's time to ask you, how many people that used a firearm in the last two years meet these criteria:
1) Under psychiatric care at the time of murdering
2) How many under a doctor's care, purchased a firearm and went on a killing spree
3) how many of them have been stopped because of doctor's intervention
4) how many have stolen a firearm, while under a doctors care, then used it against society?

 

If the overreactive liberals had their way.... we would all be safe from 'weapons' like golf clubs, hammers, steak knives, bricks, screwdrivers and automobiles.

 

Lol...

I guess these days straddling a man who is laying on the ground, punching him in the face "MMA style"....
is considered "minding your own business".

People are hilarious.

 

Why do you want to make the US look like a racist society by helping blacks ?

 

Exactly, I was using your logic.

The current law (NICS) will already save lives so your claim is specious. You are WRONG to imply that passing the bill would have done more because the bill that rightfully failed did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address the mentally ill and getting more of the mentally ill reported, PERIOD. Your entire premise is specious at best.

Prove it. show how anything in that bill would have saved a Sandy Hook Elementary life!

Yes, I have confirmed that everything you said is wrong, misinformed or illogical.

says you....

 

I don't know much about this legislation, so don't know enough to intelligently comment. Logically it seems very reasonable we shouldn't allow the crazy to have fire-arms. Would this be a new database that is set up for tracking people? Would this require a new bureaucracy to manage? Would there be crazies that didn't get the help or medication they needed because they didn't want their names put in this database? Who would make the determination that a given individual had crossed the line of craziness that they would be denied a fire-arm? Lots of people get counseling for various reasons.

 

i personally am still on the fence with the Zimmerman/Treyvon incident. and what i mean by that i still lean that it was 2 moronic fools who met up to cancel eachother out. but in the same sense you are correct, this shooting couldnt even come near to being considered justified, in which Zimmerman did have a much better reason to shoot Treyvon.

 

Per the 5th amendment, rights can be lost, due to the actions of due process (i.e. the actions of a judge).

 

if republicans had their way people could not have sex without a permit, everyone would have to be christian and only the 1% would get to enjoy the American dream...


.

 

That would be like saying if democrats and liberals had their way people could have sex with any species and anything with a hole in it, a shaft sticking out of it, or both, everyone would have to be atheists and there would be no 1% and NO American Dream.

Hummm.....Republicans look better than democrats --even viewed in the extreme!

 

Blacks are oppressed. They are lack wealth, employment and opportunity. I don't care about image. I care about leveling the playing field.

 

Martin was minding his own business when Zimmerman chose to follow him. This is a simple truth that you can't spin.
Sorry?

 

you were there? you saw it all? OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! and you didn't testify at the trial....well, bud, you failed in your responsibility as a citizen...............

 

No you weren't. My logic says that lives would be saved by passing the bill, and denying a gun to crazies. And you are denying that. You are not "using". It looks like you are just mindlessly babbling.

FALSE! On 2 counts. First, My claim has nothing to do with what any current law does. Secondly, I didn't "imply" anything. I never imply, infer, or insinuate anything, ever. If I want to say something, I say it. And I said (and I say it again) that the bill would have saved lives by stopping some mentally ill people from buying guns. All your half-baked post talks about is "getting more of the mentally ill reported". LOL. That is called changing the subject. I said nothing about that. What I say is that those who are ALREADY REPORTED AND KNOWN, could be stopped from buying guns. If you're going to bring up another subject, that's fine, but you shouldn't act like you are refuting someone else's point, which has nothing to do with some new point that you bring up.. In no way have you refuted my point. No way, PERIOD.

Once again, you change the subject. In Post # 93, I said "it DOES WORK for those who ARE REPORTED."
Then you start talking about Sandy Hook. I wasn't taking about that. I was talking about the EBC law working on behalf of anyone who might be protected from "those who ARE REPORTED" to be mentally ill and dangerous.
You need to learn how to follow posts, and reply to them with respect to WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, and not just throw anything into a discussion from your scatterbrained mind, which seems to be all over the place, which is about the only thing you've confirmed here, which of course, is not my problem. Now pardon me while I go to other posts, and talk to REAL posters, who are conducting intelligible discussions. Pheeeeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle)

 

What invariably answers questions like these is TIME.

 

Nobody considered him a nut case until the split second he opened fire. It's always been amazing to me how a guy can go from perfectly sane to nut case in a millisecond, but I guess it's possible.

 

even if it's over a short period of time, how can it be predicted? There is no measure that can be legislated to prevent a fellow who has a sudden issue from owning guns.
And what about the fellow who is grouchy? Does he qualify as mentally unstable? Who sets the guidelines up and establishes the procedures?
As we are all aware, any bureaucracy that is established will cost a fortune just to set up, much less run. . Who's going to pay for that?

 

I dunno. I would think before we passed legislation that repressed individuals freedoms we would want very specific guidelines as to what constitutes - crazy enough to lose your rights. And that is very difficult to do with something as subjective as sanity and with psychiatrists who both support and oppose gun rights making these determinations. If a woman has postpartum depression are her gun rights taken away forever? Would she have to go before some new board to have them reinstated? I agree that guns in the hands of crazies is a terrible idea. Preventing it seems like a huge bureaucratic nightmare with a significant new department of government.