Third suspect, 16 years old, arrested in shooting deaths of 3 teens in Marion County

I think you misunderstood my wording

Conservatives-amending the constitution is the proper procedure
Lefties-we can pretend that the commerce clause actually was intended to allow the federal government to sanction a farmer growing wheat for his own use or use it to ban guns despite the second amendment

Most of what FDR did should have required an amendment. He knew he couldn't get that done so his court just ignored what the constitution said

 

He didn't say the Constitution should have stopped at any amendment. Read what he wrote.

 

Oh lets' see. YOu have MTG, Trump, Gaetz, Jim Jordan, the Freedom Caucus, and a whole bunch of others who do exactly that.

 

That is the very disturbing part. Three teens lost their lives to the other three teens that they knew. Talk about the ultimate betrayal. You have one teen who is 12, another who is 16, and a third who is 17.

 

Again, that is BS. The justices at the Supreme Court during FDR were strict Constitutionalists with many of FDR's programs being struck down by that Supreme Court. The only exceptions was the TVA, CCC, and a couple of other programs. They even verified or concluded that the 1934 Firearms Act was constitutional because it did deal with interstate commerce. Firarms were shipped by mail for a lot of people through what we know as "mail order" catalogs. And interstate commerce is very broad in scope and has been that way through the Supreme Court since the inception of the current form of government. It was created to prevent the mistakes of the Articles of Confederacy where each state could block trade of another state. Virginia was very open about this during the Articles of Confederacy.

 

Allegation, nothing conclusive. And that is the theory of the police. It is probable, but not confirmed. But in the end, does it matter really?

 

They suspected as gang members. But not every gang member has a rap sheet. In fact, most don't and they are more valuable than the shot callers in the gang. They are the ones who can carry a firearm from one place to another without arising any suspicion as long as they are smart. They can also deal drugs or deliver drugs as a mule. But being in a gang does not necessarily mean that they have rap sheets.

 

Juvenile kids can't legally carry guns. If I had to bet about the existence of their criminal record I know what side of the line I throw my money

 

No, probably not, but if you keep reading most have come to the conclusion that you have, including the police. They said they could also have been wanna be gang members. One thing for sure, they weren't good kids.

 

they were the first court that pretended that the commerce clause actually allowed regulation of private citizens who did not act outside their own state. go ahead and try to defend wickard v filburn. And go ahead and pretend the CC trumps the second amendment . No one receives a gun legally in the mail or a common carrier unless they have a federal firearms license

the FDR programs were struck down but after FDR won a huge landslide in 36 and threatened to pack the court, the court started fluffing FDR and ignoring over 100 years of precedent

 

what constitutional rights are they trying to undermine

 

True, which goes back to my point on how to stop that from happening with the current law. You have limitations, such as how do you know that person is under the age of 18. The 12-year-old, or the picture I saw of the 12-year-old could easily be mistaken as a 17 or 18-year-old. And that is the police limitation of probable cause. So, if the police, through their gut feeling, say that he is carrying, and think the person is underage, then they run the risk of being wrong. And if being wrong is proven, it is a civil lawsuit, bad media attention, and loss of the job along with their peace officer's license.

 

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of travel as guaranteed by the Supreme Court, the right to redress grievances, the right to vote, or at least making it more difficult for certain groups to vote than other groups, which goes to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and so forth.

 

LOL that's hilarious

 

Show your work. Let's see some valid examples of those you mentioned, MTG, Trump, Gaetz, Jim Jordan, the Freedom Caucus, ignoring freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of travel as guaranteed by the SC, the right to redress grievances, the right to vote, etc.

 

I asked @Alwayssa to show us the proof.

 

The DNC have history of being some dastardly bastards The DNC have been trying their best to cover their roots but the best they can do is an unproven rating

 

Completely untrue. If seeing a person concealed carry before this law change was probably caused because you legally have to have a license.... Then seeing a person concealed carry now is still probable cause by the same logic because some people are not allowed to have guns.

 

how to you define good kid? Being in a gang has more to do with socioeconomic factors than anything else. The gang becomes family, much like if you join the fire department, that fire station is your family or your platoon in the Army becomes your family, all figuratively speaking. I am not saying gangs are good, but belonging to a gang will explain more about their home life than anything else. It may not explain why they did this. And I don't think this was some sort of gang initiation that the three were trying to do. And it may explain the motive for the deed, or at least a backdrop to the motive.

When it comes to the facts of this case, what will really matter is whether were they there when the homicides occurred, who, specifically pulled the trigger, and at what point did they decide to do this dastardly deed. That will be the key to the conviction. The 12-year-old will have the "easiest" time. That person will be the most likely to flip and turn state evidence. But the 12-year-old will spend the remaining part of his youth in juvenile detention and then spend life behind bars in a state penitentiary. The other two teens will be tried as adults and will get life from the very get-go and be at the state penitentiary. They are, quite literally, fresh meat, for the inmates at whatever Florida maximum state correction facility they will be assigned to. In the meantime, they will be in county jail and I hope no bail is allowed on these three. If bail, I expect something like $500k to over $1 million. So, I don't expect them to get out of county lockup anytime soon.

 

The key to this is age. Some people are over the age of 18 but look young for their age. And some are under the age of 18 but look older for their age. So looks can be deceiving and it is not the best of probable cause. The only way to do this is unfortunately using illegal means that police are not allowed to do such as guilty by association or racial profiling.

 

So why book bans by conservatives? Books is freedom of speech is it not? Then we have laws in Florida about LGBTQ and the "Don't say your gay" bills or the "anti-woke" bills. Then we have GOP in Florida wanting to ban the Democratic Party. Again, that is freedom of Association is it not? You have protests, which is a right to redress your grievance or at least one avenue or method to redress your grievances.

 

So why would it not have been illegal for them to demand someone's concealed carry permit before this law?

You can't argue your way out of this one.

 

No one is banning books. They are keeping them in the store instead of schools where they belong. We don't need blowjob comics for children. If parents really want their children to have that content, they can provide it.

 

I think you were too quick on the draw when you posted this.

MTG has posted that people who move from "Blue" states into "Red States" have to have their voting rights be denied for five years. Then you have Trump and the GOP suppression of the voting rights of certain groups in which it is harder if you take away the absentee ballots and drop boxes altogether. Then you have Texas GOP who want to ban books with gay characters. Or this article about the expanding GOP war on free speech.

 

no one is banning books anymore than they are banning alcohol. Some are saying that some books are not appropriate for children. Unlike Democrat gun banners no one is trying to prevent adults from buying books-which is different than saying our tax dollars shouldn't provide certain material to minors