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.

  • admiralteal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ah, so the gun was purchased legally by one of those trustworthy, responsible members of the well-regulated militia. Nothing to see here, then.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      11 months ago

      “Well regulated militia” didn’t mean the same thing back then.

      Well regulated = well armed and equipped.
      Militia = general public who could be called up at a moments notice for public defense.

      See:

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

      “The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

      So:

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

      • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • candybrie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                  • candybrie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    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.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

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

                  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.

                  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.