A 14-year-old boy allegedly fatally shot his older sister in Florida after a family argument over Christmas presents, officials said Tuesday.
The teen had been out shopping on Christmas Eve with Abrielle Baldwin, his 23-year-old sister, as well as his mother, 15-year-old brother and sister’s children, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said during a news conference.
The teenage brothers got into an argument about who was getting more Christmas presents.
“They had this family spat about who was getting what and what money was being spent on who, and they were having this big thing going on in this store,” Gualtieri said.
Regardless of how you FEEL about the 2nd amendment, it is the law of the land and it’s not going anywhere until we can get 290 votes in the House… you know, the legal body that took 15 tries to get the simple majority of 218 to decide who their own leader was.
But hey, we got 311 to bounce out George Santos, so it IS possible to get that level of agreement, it just won’t happen on guns.
“Regardless of the geriatrics who wrote the constitution, it will never change due to the geriatrics who are now in power”
While your comment is entirely true, it represents a seriously flaw in the way that our country determines what is best for its people
Oh, there’s no doubt about that, but it’s what we have to live with.
Jefferson advocated for throwing everything out and starting over every 19 years, that would have been interesting.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whether-the-american-constitution-is-binding-on-those-who-were-not-born-at-the-time-it-was-signed-and-agreed-to-1789
“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.”
So, two years before the Bill of Rights. If Jefferson had his way, the 2nd Amendment (and everything else) would have expired in 1810 and would have had to be renewed then and another 11 times since then.
But Jefferson didn’t get his way and here we are!
Very true. Sorry you got downvoted for getting to your real point, but I’m in agreement, that when those that wrote the constitution came up with it, and subsequently additions were added the bill of rights, and what was those who fought for the next amendments, it was the most progressive thing at the time. But as our world has changed, so should our values and therefore our constitution, and every modification and addition. Empires come and go when they think they are infallible, the US is no different, and we should be willing to throw out what some consider “holy texts” when it makes sense to build a better nation.
We actually are really close to a constitutional convention. It takes 34 states to call for it and so far, 28 are on board.
Unfortunately, they’re all red states.
https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/
So if we throw out the Constitution, these red states will be the ones to write a new one.
The 2nd Amendment will look positively progressive compared with what they’ll come up with, along with likely disenfranchising women, minorities, and any other group they dislike.
The only saving grace is that while 34 states can call for a convention, it takes 38 states to ratify a new convention.
Trump only ever won 25 states, so they would need 13 Biden states to ratify a new convention and that doesn’t seem likely.
Which brings us back to the 2nd Amendment not going anywhere…
Yikes. Well I should signify that I want a more progressive constitution that helps women, minorities, and the disenfranchised, not a fascism base to build upon. But yeah, I see what you mean it’s either “throw out the government now in favor of fascism” or “keep the current constitution, but deal with the 2nd ammendment”
That’s the reality of it, and unfortunately the people who keep downvoting will never read down this far. :)
Other folks will though, eventually! Hello future people! Hope you’ve done better!
Realistically, the actual wording of 2nd amendment is actually rather specific. But that leads to a whole different ugly ass problem - what to do about the corrupt SC?
Ugh
Yup, that’s a problem and it’s only getting MORE conservative, not less.
Adding term limits would require an Amendment which can’t be done for the same reason changing the 2nd can’t be done, the vote hurdle is too high.
Packing the court isn’t the answer, because the next president of the opposing party would just re-pack it the other way.
So the only thing that can be done is make sure Biden wins in '24, and the Dems win in '28 and hope that by '32 Thomas and Alito have aged out. Thomas will be 84 in '32 and Alito will be 82.
If they’re still hanging on, then it’s a matter of voting D until they’re gone.
Because if Trump or another R is in office when they leave, you can forget changing the composition of the court in our lifetime.
The law changes all the time.
It does, it’s been getting more conservative since 2008.
Here’s the breakdown:
2008 - Heller - Self defense is the core component of the 2nd Amendment, you can’t require safe storage, ban entire classes of weapons, or require militia membership.
2010 - McDonald - Heller applies to States as well (Heller was a Washington D.C. ruling so clarity was needed to show it applied to the states.
2016 - Caetano - 2nd Amendment applies to bearable weapons that did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. This one is fascinating. MA tried to charge a woman for buying a stun gun to protect herself from a violent ex. MA argued “stun guns didn’t exist, so 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply.” Supreme Court shot that down.
2022 - Bruen - Carrying a gun for self defense is a fundamental right and states cannot require “special need” to exercise it. Bonus - court also ruled that future gun laws need to show historical precedent or be struck down.
Bruen is going to be key in future gun cases. This court will have some super unpopular rulings in the pipeline.