So how did Roe v.Wade get passed ?
Liberal Activist Judges on the Supreme Court? ( Totally different from Partisan.)
You still on technical discombobulation do distract people ?
You must have been an English major ( if you went to college) as you’re always on this grammar and comprehension crap.

Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in the case that legalized abortion for women, has confessed in innumerable interviews and
speaking events that she never had an abortion and that her pregnancy was not a product of rape as she had claimed in the
case. The then mother of two gave her third child the gift of adoption.

“McCorvey had made one trip to an illegal abortion clinic in Dallas that had been shut down. But now, McCorvey says she
wouldn’t have had an abortion, anyway, because she was too far along in her pregnancy. “I can honestly say no, I wouldn’t
have,” she said.

Norma McCorvey wrote in her first book, I Am Roe, that she in fact was not pregnant by rape like she had first said. That was a
lie. She said she had invented the rape story in an attempt to make a stronger case for an abortion.

In 1995, Norma McCorvey declared herself pro-life.

Norma McCorvey publicly committed her life to ‘serving the Lord and helping women save babies.’ She accepted a new job at
Operation Rescue as a computer operator and was welcomed into the pro-life community. Since that time, McCorvey published
“Won By Love” in January of 2003, sharing her true story and accounts of changing her position from pro-choice to pro-life.

1) How do people read the same words differently?  I mean they read the same words, but the meaning they take away from the same words can be very different.  I can tell you 100% in my heart that religion does NOT lean my professional decisions.  Can others?  I would think so.  I just am not so quick to judge and dismiss based on my feewings. . .

2) The code I am referring to often times is legal language.  Some codes become legal requirements, some remain recommendations.  Not sure what you are getting at WRT plausible argument.  My point was that engineers often apply judgement to words in code and how to interpret.  It's not an issue if it's to code or not.  The issue usually is how a designer goes about trying to meet the code.  See, stuff like building code and such intentionally leaves certain areas up to interpretation and the expectation is that licensed engineers have the discipline to apply proper judgement.  While not lofty status, I don't consider SCOTUS that different. 

3) Now that, is important.   

Explain that conclusion ....

If you can.

Who said civilians can't own those weapons systems?

I totally get what the 2A is about.
And my posts support that.
As have my actions. (More than I can say for you Flapp.)
But you keep posting stuff that pokes holes In it.
I’m just reluctantly pointing that out.

You say stupid stuff and have no reply’s to rebuttals and that’s dangerous for our 2A community

P.S. RobDmc unfortunately can’t see this because he censored me. 

Can we buy nerve gas or nukes?

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control treaty that outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. The full name of the treaty is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction and it is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an intergovernmental organization based in The Hague, The Netherlands. The treaty entered into force on 29 April 1997. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the large-scale use, development, production, stockpiling and transfer of chemical weapons. Very limited production for research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective purposes is still permitted. The main obligation of member states under the convention is to effect this prohibition, as well as the destruction of all current chemical weapons. All destruction activities must take place under OPCW verification.

As of May 2018, 193 states have become parties to the CWC and accept its obligations. Israel has signed but not ratified the agreement, while three other UN member states (Egypt, North Korea and South Sudan) have neither signed nor acceded to the treaty.[1][5] Most recently, the State of Palestine deposited its instrument of accession to the CWC on 17 May 2018. In September 2013 Syria acceded to the convention as part of an agreement for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons.[6][7]

As of November 2018, 96.62% of the world's declared chemical weapons stockpiles had been destroyed.[8] The convention has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical production facilities, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.

In the 1939 case U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected those arms that would be useful to a citizen’s militia in a military engagement. The court held that the Second Amendment did not protect short-barrelled shotguns, but the decision seems to imply that machineguns, rocket launchers and antitank rifles would be protected.

U.S. v. Heller redefined the meaning of “arms” in the Second Amendment. The decision held that the Second Amendment protected all firearms “commonly is use,” but not those that were “dangerous or unusual” without defining those terms.

In U.S. v. McDonald, the Supreme Court subsequently held that the Second Amendment was a Fundamental Right and was incorporated onto the states by the 14th Amendment.

Flapp is just used to being a trump, screaming at someone else on why hes always right and everything is how he thinks it is.  Then gas lighting anyone who disagrees.

If you had to engineer a better abortion machine would you?  Nothing legally is stopping you fyi.

Are you attempting to make a connection to support your argument on ACB? Not even close to being analogy worthy btw.

To answer your question, no I would not. First, no such thing. Second, there are other things to guide one’s actions than the legality of something. Third, my religious beliefs would have zero impact on my decision.

Nice try WLB... 

Your Boss/job instructs you to engineer a better abortion machine would you?  So that women can more easily access their right to abort.  Nothing legally is stopping you fyi. With your religious conviction (I assume its against abortion) would you do your job?

Flapp is just used to being a trump, screaming at someone else on why hes always right and everything is how he thinks it is.  Then gas lighting anyone who disagrees.

It's just that you and AssHole are always WRONG!

You have beliefs, pure and simple.  Without facts and supportive information, you're no better than a blind follower of a cult religion.

You assume? Bwahahahaha

:facepalm:

I am against people who approach life like they know it all from a position of ignorance.

Are you attempting to make a connection to support your argument on ACB? Not even close to being analogy worthy btw.

To answer your question, no I would not. First, no such thing. Second, there are other things to guide one’s actions than the legality of something. Third, my religious beliefs would have zero impact on my decision.

Nice try WLB... 

Wait....why does it not apply?  I work with computers if my boss wanted me to program a machine that does [insert] with abortion, because I have no religious commandments stopping me I don't see why I would not listen and do that program.    You literally spelt out religious bias.  Just does it magically not apply for judges?

I don't pretend to know everything but I also don't shove my head into a hole like ostrich and blindly follow.  I try think objectively from both sides.  Even if that side is one I don't agree with. I am only human in the end though, I make mistakes.

Wait....why does it not apply?  I work with computers if my boss wanted me to program a machine that does [insert] with abortion, because I have no religious commandments stopping me I don't see why I would not listen and do that program.    You literally spelt out religious bias.  Just does it magically not apply for judges?

I don't pretend to know everything but I also don't shove my head into a hole like ostrich and blindly follow.  I try think objectively from both sides.  Even if that side is one I don't agree with. I am only human in the end though, I make mistakes.

Are you attempting to make a connection to support your argument on ACB? Not even close to being analogy worthy btw.

To answer your question, no I would not. First, no such thing. Second, there are other things to guide one’s actions than the legality of something. Third, my religious beliefs would have zero impact on my decision.

Nice try WLB... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did
I
Say
It
Does
Not
Apply?

Damn...

Can someone talk some sense into this millennial emeffer?