Florida teen allegedly shoots, kills sister after argument over Christmas gifts
Florida teen allegedly shoots, kills sister after argument over Christmas gifts
An argument over Christmas gifts turned deadly in Florida after a 14-year-old boy allegedly fatally shot his older sister.
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Your comment has been reported, but as you had links and appeared to be arguing in good-faith, I decided to leave it. With that said, I completely disagree with your words.
Review Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Militia was what we now call "National Guard". Speaking from experience, as a former guardsman as well as vet in 2 other branches. Back when I went to basic, this was well discussed as a given. I'm surprised people think otherwise to this day.
Unfortunately, it's the Supreme Court who defines such things and, as cited in D.C. vs. Miller above, they very clearly set the definition as noted.
Since that ruling, they have further clarified it in McDonald vs. City of Chicago (necessary because Heller involved Washington D.C., which isn't a state).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
Generally when I point out these inconvenient facts the response is "well, who cares what the Supreme Court says! Get the court to reverse it!"
Which, sure, can be done, we saw that with Roe vs. Wade, all it took was 50 years and the appointment of one conservative judge after another.
In theory we could flip the court, Thomas and Alito are the two oldest members of the court and highly conservative, so electing a Democratic President in '24 and again in '28 would virtually assure flipping the court.
Then the problem becomes keeping it, because the next three oldest are Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.
I wasn't arguing with you about what they say NOW. I was pointing you to what they literally said THEN.
You said "a well regulated militia didn't mean the same thing back then"
I merely pointed you to the founders own words to show you that you were wrong.
It wasn't an amendment. It was baked into the first article.
You pointing out the RECENT supreme court ruling was a bad faith argument against my rebuttal.
Yes, I'm pointing out that the Supreme Court now has defined what the founders meant then. :) They are the arbiters of what the founders meant after all.
There's a TON of history they go through in Heller, and McDonald and the recent ruling from New York, Bruen.
All worth reading if you have the time.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
Bruen is the one with most of their historical reasoning because it's the one that requires a historical precedent for gun laws, which is a new twist.
They aren't arbiters of what the founders meant. They're arbiters of how we currently interpret the constitution. Originalism is only one possible way to interpret it.
That's LITERALLY their job.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."
Like I said, they're arbiters of how we currently interpret the constitution. Originalism is only one possible way to interpret it. There are philosophies like strict textualism where they only look at the plain text and bring no extra context. Or the living constitution philosophy where they apply current day context.
The Heller decision went against 200+ years of precedent.
And it was upheld 2 years later in McDonald vs. City of Chicago:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
I'm not asking anyone to LIKE the rulings, I just want people to understand what they're talking about.
Unfortunately if you take people point by point through Heller, McDonald, Caetano (my personal favorite), and Bruen, their eyes glaze over and they never read it.
The founders were alcoholic slave owners, who fucking cares what they mean lol
We all need to care what they meant so long as we continue living under their system and that's not changing any time soon.
And under this system they can make up anything they want! That's what you need to understand - there are no rules. They can make up anything.
The Supreme Court can and will do that, which is why it's important to be cognizant of who is on the court and who potentially will age out next.
Just based on age, Thomas and Alito will be next to go, which is why it's important to have a Democratic President in '24 and '28. They will both likely be replaced by '32.
The next three are Roberts, who is slightly more sane than the others on the right, Sotomayor and Kagan.
So reversing the conservative trend is contingent on Democrats holding the office of the President probably until '40? Then hoping there isn't a McConnell style dickbag move that blocked Merrick Garland.
If Trump is elected, you can expect Thomas and Alito to step down so younger conservative justices can dominate the court for the next 30-40 years.
Trump will file a lawsuit if he loses and the Court is going to rule in favor of him 5/4 anyway. 🙄
Even if that doesn't happen, the conservative "trend" is baked into the institution. It was designed to be conservative, to act as a check against democratic forces. It literally can't be anything but conservative. At best we can keep the Court from becoming more fascist, but that's it. We can only play triage with the Court - for the country to heal it must be abolished.
It can be, we just need more Democratic presidents nominating justices.
In my lifetime there have been 8 Republican Presidential terms to 6 Democratic terms, which doesn't sound SUPER imbalanced.
But in that same time, Republican Presidents nominated 15 justices to the court and Democrats only 5. Should have been 14:6 if the Garland seat hadn't been stolen. 13:7 if Ginsburg had stepped down when she had the chance.
In my lifetime half the presidents lost the popular vote and then went on to appoint Justices, so you might understand why I have zero faith in this institution.