George Zimmerman back in the news: another shooting incident

[Wry Catcher]

The 1968 gun act is rarely enforced by US Attorney's. It is illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun (own, possess or have in custody and control) in CA's Penal Code, so the Feds don't become involved unless there is a pressing (as in a big news story and they want credit) involved. Better in their mind that the CA taxpayer pay for the prosecution and incarceration than the feds.

Ok.... and?

You default to the Second, my opinion is the Second is outdated. The hurdle to change it is too high, the NRA would put billions into defending it.

Unfortunately (for you), your opinion here doesn't mean a lot -- you can't change the constitution w/o amending it.
And, of course you fully agree that the NRA has every right under the 1st amendment to oppose that change.

So, it is best in my opinion to do what we can on the State Level.

The states are bound by the 2nd as well, applied to them thru the 14th amendment,.

The irony of this entire argument is gun owners demand their rights, and the first thing the NRA does after a mass murder is demand the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

Unsupportable nonsense.

YOU wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please. And such a law is open to appeal as to its constitutionality. And, that is decided by the majority if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. And, in DC v. Heller that majority was a single vote:

District of Columbia v. Heller One of the Supreme Court s most important Second Amendment decisions Parents Against Gun Violence

 

[PredFan]

George Zimmerman continues to inflict major butthurt on left wing nutters everywhere. For that alone, I would like to buy him a beer or two.

 

[Wry Catcher]

George Zimmerman continues to inflict major butthurt on left wing nutters everywhere. For that alone, I would like to buy him a beer or two.

He stalked and murdered a minor. He may have been found not guilty, but he is surely culpable.

 

[PredFan]

George Zimmerman continues to inflict major butthurt on left wing nutters everywhere. For that alone, I would like to buy him a beer or two.

He stalked and murdered a minor. He may have been found not guilty, but he is surely culpable.

He did neither. He's completely innocent. If you had a non partisan brain cell at all you would know that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

 

[PredFan]

Any minute now the US Government will file charges against GZ for murdering poor innocent Trayvon in cold blood. It's such and obvious open and shut case of racism that it's going to take a black AG to bring justice. I mean it's obvious that ZIMMERMAN is guilty right?

Any minute now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

"I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please. And such a law is open to appeal as to its constitutionality. And, that is decided by the majority if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. And, in DC v. Heller that majority was a single vote"

So, knock off your bullshit and stop pretending you're open to an honest debate. You're beginning to act like that moron who wanted to debate by his rules.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

Clearly,. the only lie here is when you said you wanted an honest and open discussion about gun control.

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

"I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please. And such a law is open to appeal as to its constitutionality. And, that is decided by the majority if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. And, in DC v. Heller that majority was a single vote"

I addressed this. The states are limited by the 2nd amendment thru the 14th amendment.
I even cited the case that said so.
Sure you saw this, because you responded to the post.

 

[PredFan]

I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

Clearly,. the only lie here is when you said you wanted an honest and open discussion about gun control.

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You are expecting that from a left winger? How long have you been here?

 

[M14 Shooter]

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

Clearly,. the only lie here is when you said you wanted an honest and open discussion about gun control.

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You are expecting that from a left winger? How long have you been here?

He said he wanted an honest and open debate. That's what he's gotten from my end.

 

[PredFan]

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

Clearly,. the only lie here is when you said you wanted an honest and open discussion about gun control.

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You are expecting that from a left winger? How long have you been here?

He said he wanted an honest and open debate. That's what he's gotten from my end.

And what you got instead is what you will always get.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

Clearly,. the only lie here is when you said you wanted an honest and open discussion about gun control.

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You are expecting that from a left winger? How long have you been here?

He said he wanted an honest and open debate. That's what he's gotten from my end.

And what you got instead is what you will always get.

The more we get into the conversation the more apparent that becomes.
But, I gave him the benefit of the doubt; if he finally proves he does NOT want the honest and open debate he asked for, I will simply lump him back in with the rest of the anti-gun loons, capable of arguing only from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
In the end, all of that is up to him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks like WC did not want an honest, open debate after all.

 

[Yurt]

These incidents sure seem to follow George Zimmerman:

George Zimmerman hurt in Florida shooting incident - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

This time, he was shot at, in a dispute with another person.

Details, but not many at this time, at the link....

lol....

how many connotations does "lol" have Statistikhengst ?

 

[jillian]

14th amendment. States cannot violate the right to keep and bear arms. Incorporated in 2010.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

"I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please. And such a law is open to appeal as to its constitutionality. And, that is decided by the majority if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. And, in DC v. Heller that majority was a single vote"

I addressed this. The states are limited by the 2nd amendment thru the 14th amendment.
I even cited the case that said so.
Sure you saw this, because you responded to the post.

constitutionality is determined by Court action, not by a legislature.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You simply don't understand the process.

Complete and total dishonesty on your part as a I CLEARLY have far more than a firm grasp of the legal processes here.

What happened to you wanting an honest and open debate?
Or, in your mind, can an honest an open debate only lead to agreement with you; disagreement wit you means the debate was not open and honest?

You wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

Now you're just lying.

"I suppose you won't agree, but a State can pass any law they please. And such a law is open to appeal as to its constitutionality. And, that is decided by the majority if and when it reaches the Supreme Court. And, in DC v. Heller that majority was a single vote"

I addressed this. The states are limited by the 2nd amendment thru the 14th amendment.
I even cited the case that said so.
Sure you saw this, because you responded to the post.

constitutionality is determined by Court action, not by a legislature.

Better tell WC, as he seems to think the opposite.