286
Florida man kills wife, shoots stepdaughter after fight over NFL game: Don't shoot me'
(www.usatoday.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2025
286 points (97.7% liked)
News
33806 readers
4313 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, so maybe, just maybe the drug using alcoholic with anger management issues should not have had a gun. But no, we can't restrict gun ownership, can we. Some old guys a about 250 years ago said we shouldn't do that. So, sorry folks. All you can do is get your own gun and hope you're fast enough to shoot any crazy fucks who come at you before they can shoot you. It's the American way.
the guys 250 years ago also said something about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." as if to qualify their following statement.
Liberals love to focus on that line. At the time "well regulated" meant "well equipped". Militias were just farmers called up to fight in case of an emergency. The founders wanted a populace armed with military quality weapons in place of a permanent professional army in case Europe decided to invade. You can argue whether that's still relevant today, but that's what they meant when they wrote it. They go into greater detail in the federalist papers.
Yeah because it's fully half of the amendment and completely ignored. It's not liberals focusing on it that matters, it's the gun nuts ignoring it.
No it didn't. That is never what "regulated" meant. Militias were a real thing then, they aren't now.
It explains why the second half is necessary. It doesn't place any restrictions on it. If it did, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" would say something like "the right of organized militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
If the amendment is no.longer relevant, change it. Stop encouraging the government to find ways to weasel around our rights or they're going to do it to the rest of them.
Military quality weapons? Then where are the civilian tanks and fighter jets? Hell, even just automatic weapons are out of our hands.
Well this may shock you, but none of those things existed in 1791 and were not accounted for in the second amendment. It really should have been updated, but doing things the right way is inconvenient so instead various governments have found back doors to water it down as they have with most of the bill of rights.
Also, from a purely pedantic perspective, private ownership of tanks and (afaik) jet fighters is perfectly legal if you have the insane amount of money you'd need to buy one. The same is true of automatic weapons if you go to the trouble and expense to get an FFL.
Yes, technically legal but fraught with regulation, which is what people are asking for with gun control.
I don't think there's any regulations on tanks except driving them on public roads. But, again, jthe amendment says "shall not be infringed". That should either be respected or changed. When you start adding "except" to the bill rights you're opening the floodgates to chisel away at all of them.
"Congress shall make no law establishing an establishment of religion" except Christianity because Jesus is Lord
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble" unless they're criticizing the ruling class
"no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" unless the cop has a really good hunch
Most of these could be sold as public safety, just like the "excepts" we've stapled onto the second amendment. We can't allow the government to treat the bill.of rights as a list of suggestions. If one of them is no longer relevant, follow the process and change it.
They've already been chiseling away at all of the Bill of Rights for decades, yet for some reason they don't touch guns. Why is that?
They have touched guns lmao where have you been? In my state you can't even buy .22lr ammo without a long gun permit. Full auto has been illegal without an FFL since the 30s. Clinton banned hundred of guns based on aesthetic features that didn't change anything about their functionality but looked scary. In his last term trump banned bump stocks nationwide via an executive order. Does that sound like "shall not be infringed" to you?
The question is why do so Americans accept their rights being watered down, and why do so many like you encourage this behavior? The constitution contains instructions on how to change the constitution. If you don't like the second amendment, change it. Stop finding weasely little workarounds that chisel away at our rights a little at a time.
You're right, I was exaggerating. There are some extremely loose, weak gun controls that mean every 11 year old isn't able to buy a machine gun. This is included in the amendment, the "well regulated militia" part, it's basically the only reason there are any gun control laws at all. Even so, the laws that do exist are very loose compared to any other English speaking country.
But why? The "well regulated militia" part could have been interpreted to say that you have to join a militia to own a gun, or that you have to pass rigorous tests and renew your license and undergo home inspections, or make gun auctions illegal so that every gun owner can be registered and tracked. That would all have been perfectly in-line with the 2nd Amendment.
We didn't do that. The question is, why?
Because that's not what the authors intended. Because words may change meaning over time but intent does not. Because in 1791 "well regulated" meant "well equipped", not "overseen by the government" and the federalist papers go into great detail backing that up.
We've covered this already. If you don't like the bill of rights, change it. Don't go looking for loopholes like a sovcit.
That's Scalia's interpretation, but that's not how it was always interpreted. Why do you think they were able to ban machine guns in the first place, and then have it upheld by the Courts for going-on 100 years? It was believed that a "well regulated militia" should refer to actual militias, not just "any random asshole that can afford a gun". That was the common interpretation for a century.
That's the trick - it can be interpreted however we want. It's all made up. It used to mean one thing, then it meant something else.
So, the question is, why did the interpretation change? Did Scalia just really love freedom? Or was there, maybe, another agenda?
That's also James Madison's interpretation, per Federalist Paper #46. The same James Madison who coauthored the constitution.
So youre essentially advocating for Orwell's newspeak, then.
Are you suggesting the ambiguously worded will of the slave owners and their enablers from 250 years ago should be adapted to modern reality? What kind of filthy commie talk is that?
It's not ambiguously worded.
This man was clearly part of a well-regulated militia.
More relevant is that people who needed to hand pack and load every mystery ball one at a time after every inaccurate shot couldn't possibly imagine a reality in which everyone has easy access to high velocity semi-automatic weapons that hold a dozen or more rounds and can be reloaded in seconds.
There's kinda a big difference between 3 rounds a minute and 3 rounds a second.
Well, I... um.. er... Hey! What in the world can that be?!
*runs off serpentine fashion in case you are about to pull out a gun*
We do restrict people’s rights to own guns though absolutely no one wants people in jail to have them.
It’s only when you talk about common sense gun restrictions that people lose their minds.
I think if you have a gun you should have to carry liability insurance on it too.
NY has some pretty clear laws about mental health history and pistol permits and I've seen Delaware county judges issue them regardless.
Dude had no criminal record so nothing preventing him from owning a gun, BUT... as a coke head, if he was using at the time he bought the gun, he would have had to have lied when filling out the purchase form and that would have been a blocker.
Florida does have a red flag law that could have been used to seize his gun(s).
https://www.fighterlaw.com/how-do-floridas-red-flag-gun-laws-work/
"In 2019, National Public Radio reported that Florida courts had approved 2,500 risk protection orders to confiscate firearms over a period of 1.5 years. That equals out to nearly five people per day that had their firearms seized due to red flag laws–more than any of the other 17 states that have adopted a similar regulation."