Gun control

I am asking who decides whether a change is "sweeping"? If it's the Supreme Court, then it seems you are fine with the current process, you just don't like the results.

Day one: the terrorists in California have all communication blocked
Day two: terrorists in California are entirely sequestered from the states food and water supplies
Day three: military strikes all terrorist targets that have not surrendered

Day four: in one month the population will be allowed to return to the previously controlled terrorist areas

How do you think a revolution would go?

Basically this, lol. If it lasts 4 days that is.

i am not sure I follow your premises and your question tbh.

how do terrorists block all communications? how does the government know the location of all terrorists?

Dude, the NSA can probably tell you your cholesterol count.

The terrorists communications are blocked

Areas of land will be considered terrorist land, Americans will have to exit the land and allow themselves to be tested by the govt to make sure they are not insurrectionists

Anyway the govt would block the terrorists communications. It’s easy to do

Not that easy, I mean they still have their 9mm pistols!

Wait, I forgot, sublime doesn't own any handguns. He's the brains of the operation.

I am fine with the current SCOTUS, I wasn't with the extremely abusive SCOTUS from approx 1950 to approx 1985, the Warren and Burger SCOTUS were absurd, they raped the fabric of the rule of law so many times I am not sure it can ever be fixed (because when it's so prolonged, the stare decisis becomes a problem).

roe v Wade reversal was obviously correct and so banal that the idea that took 50 years is scary for the prospects of fixing the other shenanigans.

at least the completely wacko denial of the death penalty was reversed. how can the death penalty magically become unconstitutional just because if interpretation? that's incredible tbh.

are you fine with courts that can completely invent what the constitution is about?

no lol, there is no zeitgeist to interpret in a lot of cases.

Can states mandate vaccinations? yes full stop and unless there is an amendment to the constitution, the answer will be the same no matter how "society evolves", even if I hate that's to be the case.

Can states institute a wealth tax? yes full stop. can the fed? absolutely no.

again that is orthogonal to your preference about having a wealth tax or not, and the answer is permanent (or should be) until an amendment changes that.

is abortion a constitutionally protected right? absolutely no. is the death penalty constitutional? absolutely yes.

I would like first trimester abortion to be a guaranteed right but it isn't.

can the feds pass laws as they have been doing for 60+ years under the commerce clause? in most cases absolutely no. here the court still hasn't fixed the obscene abuses that started with Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

that was a decision according to which the federal congress could regulate any activity that had any effect however indirect on commerce. that's such a blatant abuse of the commerce clause, a power grab for the federal government at the expense of state powers, with a constitution that actually says that any power not explicitly given to the feds , is the states'.

that's doing the literal opposite of what the constitution transparently allows.

and no you don't decide what the fed powers are according to "zeitgeist" (Ie your preferences), that's not how rule of law should work.

These are your views in what is and isn't constitutional. The court that ruled on those cases disagreed with you. That is really the only point being made here.

man there are a lot of things that have to be precise, starting from how the country institution work and how exactly powers are divided among them. Precise and immutable until amended.

The point being made is they vastly changed the application of the same text reading into it something completly different from what other courts read into it.

And that cannot be proper. Pro abortion people in Italy don't invent a non existing right to abortion in the constitution; they instead pass laws for it (they succeeded) and try to change the constitution when they have the numbers (they don't yet, france just did) to add it explicitly.

The fact with the commerce clause, which might not be obvious even to many americans because it's a somewhat obscure concept, is that the constitution very explicitly didn't envision an omnipotent federal government, nor did it allow it to be so.

And it's blatant, not opinable. They just amended the constitution about a core element of it from the bench.

I mean it isn't hard. Certain things, like abortion pass a law 51% assuming Dem president easy game. Major change like no guns get 2/3rd states, harder game which feels right.

Abortion passed with 51% can be taken away with just an election though.

And it's unclear if it is possible to have a federal law that forces all state to allow abortion, looks like contrary to Dobbs currently.

...and none of it effects you. yet here you are, day after ****ing day, trying to convince people in another country that their system of government should be run differently.

gotta wonder why.....

I have my fair share of issues with Luciom's views, but I have to say, commenting on American politics while not being American is not one of them. Also, that applies to at least 1/3 of the regs here.

Actually the current SCOTUS is fine and far better than the previous ones, looks like it's you who dislike how your country is doing about many things more than me.

Btw it does effect me directly as the son of an American citizen to begin with as already explained, and as a citizen of an American satellite country.

Moreover if you guys stop all green bullshit for example it's quite hard on this side to keep pushing and suicide ourselves given without you on board it's all moot even according to their own models.

If you guys ban medical mutilations for kids that feel they are the opposite sex, here we don't even start. And so on

lol "satellite country"

i think you've been spending a little too much time in your backyard Mussolini memorial

if a foreign country has military bases in your country, you are a satellite of that empire.

which btw is fine for me and I will be forever thankful to Americans (and others) who saved our ass from domestic fascism and Nazi occupiers.

PW, what's your take on this ruling?

James Crumbley, father of Michigan school shooter, found guilty of manslaughter

What role did the parents play in this tragedy? I like that we lock up getaway drivers for violent crimes so if the parents helped in a significant way I like this idea.

I wonder if this applies to only school shootings or if a parent knows a child is robbing people at gun point, is in a violent gang or doing some other life threatening crimes if this could apply too.

I know punishing people for crimes their family members commit is common in North Korea, but I haven’t heard of anyone else doing it.

Seems odd that the parents can be liable for anything other then improper storage of a firearm because of what their child did while at the same time said child is tried as an adult.

People that charge children as adults should go to jail

Parents definitely have a responsibility for guns they give to their kids or dont properly secure in the home. Children are children so should be tried as children.