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.
So to start with: universal registration and ID/licensing for gun ownership, and strict liability on registered owners for crimes committed by their guns.
I’m in, sounds great.
2nd Amendment. Can’t be done. “Shall not be infringed.”
Add to that the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
“the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
This is a new twist from the Supremes. Gun laws must prove that they are in keeping with “historical tradition”. So, banning felons from owning guns is allowed, there’s an historical tradition for that.
So if there’s no historical basis, it won’t pass muster at the Supremes.
You think you can just say “2a” and that shuts every argument down, it’s so cringe
When the argument is the overly simplistic “well, just ban guns” the counter argument doesn’t need to be more nuanced than that. We can’t ban guns, full stop. The sooner we abandon that dead end logic, the sooner we can start working on what we CAN change.
For example, remember the guy who shot up Michigan State? Had a prior felony arrest on a gun charge, but was allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor, did his time, did his probation, passed a background check, bought a gun and shot up the school.
How is this for a fundamental change:
If someone gets arrested on felony GUN CHARGE, you stick them with the felony. No plea deals on gun charges.
Felons, legally, can’t buy guns.
Or, how about this, you let him plea down to the misdemeanor charge, but you make it so ANY gun conviction, felony or misdemeanor, blocks you from gun ownership.
Crazy, right? But those are the conversations we AREN’T having because people get hung up on “ban guns” and that will NEVER happen.
Youre saying something called an amendment can’t be changed?
You might need a thesaurus buddy.
Sure, it can be changed… here’s the process:
First you get 290 votes in the House, the body that needed 15 tries to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader was.
THEN you need 67 votes in the Senate, the body that can’t muster 60 votes to over-ride filibuster after filibuster.
If by some miracle, you get those votes, then you need ratification by 38 states, from a country that broke 25 states for Biden and 25 states for Trump in the last election.
Here’s the map, find 13 red states that will vote to give up their guns. Keep in mind, of the 25 Biden states, only 19 of them have Democratic statehouses, so you’ll likely lose six of them as well and for every blue state you lose, you need 1 more red state.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/2020-actual-electoral-map
So, yes, given the current state of American politics, the Amendment will never change. Same as if, say, you wanted an Amendment protecting abortion, or establishing the size and term limits of the Supreme Court.
Oh so we went from “cannot be infringed” to “supreme court rulings” to “the politics wouldn’t work out”.
Keep skating buddy youre almost gone full circle
The status quo is “cannot be infringed”.
The Supreme Court rulings have codified it.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/742/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/20-843/
Changing “cannot be infringed” is not politically possible.
All three of those are true statements.
You’re playing pigeon chess. Dude is mentally handicapped.
You’re playing pigeon chess. Dude is mentally handicapped.
Meh, the modern interpretation came from corrupt justices legislating from the bench, building completely ahistoric interpretations to suit modern sensibilities. This whole absolute 2A thing is entirely modern with no sincere history backing it up. The solution is court reform which is needed for a host of other reasons anyway.
But also, just to point out, YOU are arguing against YOUR OWN solutions. Which is absolute proof of how intractable the situation is right now. And the situation has become intractable because of people like you.
You’re the problem.