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.

  • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The second amendment refers to a well regulated militia and bearing arms. It gives the right to possess guns by militia members.

    The Second Amendment also states its purpose expressly: to protect the security of the state. If the “let everyone have whatever guns” approach is a threat to state security, then obviously that approach isn’t protected by the Second Amendment.

    Your version of the Second Amendment is a right-wing lie, not borne out by law books, history books, or dictionaries.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Again, rendered irrelevant by the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald:

      https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

      “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.”

      Further, they explain their reasoning:

      “As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.””

      This reading is pretty obvious when you look at the text of the 2nd Amendment:

      “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          We should hope so, but then it took 50 years to overturn Roe… so…

          Right now, the court is 6-3 conservative.

          If Biden wins in '24 and the Dems win again in '28, that gives a solid chance at replacing Thomas and Alito. Thomas is 75, Alito is 73. So 84 and 82 by 2032.

          That would flip the court 5-4 liberal.

          But the next 3 after that are Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan. Roberts has been somewhat of a check on the crazier judges, losing these three under a Republican President would lock in Conservative rule for the better part of a century.