Ducey signs bill making it Class 6 felony to perform abortion due only to genetic abnormality

https://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/ducey-signs-pro-life-bill-making-it-class-6-felony-perform-abortion-due?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Ducey signs bill making it Class 6 felony to perform abortion due only to genetic abnormality

https://justthenews.com/government/state-houses/ducey-signs-pro-life-bill-making-it-class-6-felony-perform-abortion-due?utm_source=justthenews.com&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=external-news-aggregators

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Stupidest law of recent history.  Why would you want to burden the innocent child and parents with lifelong trouble.  The main reason you have an abortion is because of health...

Read the second line.  #stillnotwrong

The Constitution has always had restrictions.  You can't use your freedom of speech to threaten to kill someone....

Yes, you can.  You can threaten people all day long. If the police/DA decide your comments were not given seriously or were taken out of context, your "threat" was covered as protected speech.

For example, "I will kill anyone who tries to take my gun unlawfully."  Sounds like a threat, but it's not specific to an individual.  Freedom of speech protects this.

Yes, you can.  You can threaten people all day long. If the police/DA decide your comments were not given seriously or were taken out of context, your "threat" was covered as protected speech.

For example, "I will kill anyone who tries to take my gun unlawfully."  Sounds like a threat, but it's not specific to an individual.  Freedom of speech protects this.

But just as you literally said yourself if it's taken seriously then it's not protected speech. Thus restrictions....

But just as you literally said yourself if it's taken seriously then it's not protected speech.

But, you are still allowed to speak it.  There may be consequences, but nothing prevents you from speaking.

I'm still wondering how anyone "uses your freedom of speech to kill someone."

"Alexa -- shoot Omnigrub in the face."

But, you are still allowed to speak it.  There may be consequences, but nothing prevents you from speaking.

I'm still wondering how anyone "uses your freedom of speech to kill someone."

"Alexa -- shoot Omnigrub in the face."

If you really believe that then the second amendment covers personal nukes.   

I'm still wondering how anyone "uses your freedom of speech to kill someone."

"Alexa -- shoot Omnigrub in the face."

Charlie Manson etc.

If you really believe that then the second amendment covers personal nukes.   

According to Flapp you can own Any arms under the Constitution...There just may be consequences.
“There may be consequences but nothing prevents you from possessing it. “

SNIP

"Alexa -- shoot Omnigrub in the face."

Siri didn't find that amusing. . . 

Charlie Manson etc.

According to Flapp you can own Any arms under the Constitution...There just may be consequences.
“There may be consequences but nothing prevents you from possessing it. “

Thanks for telling everyone what you think I think.

What I really think, and have stated many times, is a nuke is classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.  It is indiscriminate in who it kills inside its blast radius, not including those who die from the fallout.

2A permits ARMS ... those weapons you can carry on your person to defend yourself against a threat, similar to the weapons an infantryman would carry. 

Killing everyone within a 1 mile blast zone or larger would be like shooting everyone in the mall because the threat you meant to kill was there -- the rest of the dead people merely got in your way.

Thanks for telling everyone what you think I think.

What I really think, and have stated many times, is a nuke is classified as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.  It is indiscriminate in who it kills inside its blast radius, not including those who die from the fallout.

2A permits ARMS ... those weapons you can carry on your person to defend yourself against a threat, similar to the weapons an infantryman would carry. 

Killing everyone within a 1 mile blast zone or larger would be like shooting everyone in the mall because the threat you meant to kill was there -- the rest of the dead people merely got in your way.

So like defining speech you recognize there are certain nuances and limits?

ARMS includes ALL weapons including nukes, regardless of destruction.  Please show me where your definition of "Arms" exists where it specifically excludes nukes and show how the founding fathers separated that out.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


No where in this statement says the amount of destruction, limiting who is targeted or exact ability to defend yourself or even that the purpose of arms is for defensive only.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you as you want to interpret it with no restrictions, arms would included all weapons,  the right to keep and bear would include offensive and collective purposes too not only defense.


Unless you admit you were wrong and that the supreme court can interpret these amendments within reason.   Just like speech you can't threaten to kill someone in a legitimate way,  you can't own nukes and there may be other reasonable limiting factors.  Its all about the nuances.

So like defining speech you recognize there are certain nuances and limits?

ARMS includes ALL weapons including nukes, regardless of destruction.  Please show me where your definition of "Arms" exists where it specifically excludes nukes and show how the founding fathers separated that out.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


No where in this statement says the amount of destruction, limiting who is targeted or exact ability to defend yourself or even that the purpose of arms is for defensive only.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you as you want to interpret it with no restrictions, arms would included all weapons,  the right to keep and bear would include offensive and collective purposes too not only defense.


Unless you admit you were wrong and that the supreme court can interpret these amendments within reason.   Just like speech you can't threaten to kill someone in a legitimate way,  you can't own nukes and there may be other reasonable limiting factors.  Its all about the nuances.

Is your Googler broken again?

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/supreme-court-confirms-second-amendment-applies-bearable-arms-common-use/

Is your Googler broken again?

https://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/supreme-court-confirms-second-amendment-applies-bearable-arms-common-use/

So you are admitting the supreme court can interpret the constitution and implement restrictions?  If we follow that decision literally as in the article a portable nuke could be classified as bearable arm.  But wait, you don't support classifying things isn't this ruling already a classification down to bearable arms thus voiding your argument? 

So you are admitting the supreme court can interpret the constitution and implement restrictions?  If we follow that decision literally as in the article a portable nuke could be classified as bearable arm.  But wait, you don't support classifying things isn't this ruling already a classification down to bearable arms thus voiding your argument?

What the hell is your problem?  Do you even have a point?

So you are admitting the supreme court can interpret the constitution and implement restrictions?  If we follow that decision literally as in the article a portable nuke could be classified as bearable arm.  But wait, you don't support classifying things isn't this ruling already a classification down to bearable arms thus voiding your argument?

It is LITERALLY the job of the judicial branch, not just the Supreme Court, to INTERPRET the Constitution and determine if laws and actions of the states and federal gov'ts violate the Constitution.

The courts DO NOT IMPLEMENT/ENFORCE LAWS.  That's up to the Executive Branch.

The courts DO NOT WRITE LAWS.  That's up to the Congress.

The restrictions you cite are IMPLEMENTED by the Congress and the President.  Congress creates and passes the bills, and the President signs them into law.

Did you miss School House Rock, or is that before your time on this planet?

As for nukes, you are ignoring the fact that a nuke has no legitimate use for self defense or defense of others.  It is an offensive weapon.  The only time nukes have been used in history at all has been as a strategic demonstration of the power the US alone commanded -- to end an already costly  world war.

I'd love to see how you might be caught alone in a dark alley, surrounded by 3-4 people intent on harming you.  How, exactly, would you be able to use that nuke to defend yourself?  If you survive the detonation, then you were not in any danger from the 3-4 attackers from the start!   

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey Signs Sweeping Pro-Life Bill Banning Down Syndrome Abortions

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/27/arizona-gov-doug-ducey-signs-sweeping-pro-life-bill-banning-down-syndrome-abortions/

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

It is LITERALLY the job of the judicial branch, not just the Supreme Court, to INTERPRET the Constitution and determine if laws and actions of the states and federal gov'ts violate the Constitution.

The courts DO NOT IMPLEMENT/ENFORCE LAWS.  That's up to the Executive Branch.

The courts DO NOT WRITE LAWS.  That's up to the Congress.

The restrictions you cite are IMPLEMENTED by the Congress and the President.  Congress creates and passes the bills, and the President signs them into law.

Did you miss School House Rock, or is that before your time on this planet?

As for nukes, you are ignoring the fact that a nuke has no legitimate use for self defense or defense of others.  It is an offensive weapon.  The only time nukes have been used in history at all has been as a strategic demonstration of the power the US alone commanded -- to end an already costly  world war.

I'd love to see how you might be caught alone in a dark alley, surrounded by 3-4 people intent on harming you.  How, exactly, would you be able to use that nuke to defend yourself?  If you survive the detonation, then you were not in any danger from the 3-4 attackers from the start!   

Like I said before the literal language of the 2nd ammendment  makes ZERO mention of defense usage... just admit you are wrong and move on.   You are already admitting that the court system interprets the laws which means there are restrictions and nuances.... unless you can show me the exact words in the second amendment that mention defense.  Or specific classes of weapons. You are just wrong. 

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey Signs Sweeping Pro-Life Bill Banning Down Syndrome Abortions

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/27/arizona-gov-doug-ducey-signs-sweeping-pro-life-bill-banning-down-syndrome-abortions/

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

I hope this is stuck down by courts. This is beyond stupid both ethically and legally.  And is largely unenforceable, just go to another state to get an abortion.

Rights are not absolute.

--Joe Biden / and Flapp

Constitutional rights are subject to restrictions.

--Every Democrat, including OmniGrub and Flapp

Hypocrite ?

 

These new abortion laws are heading back to the courts. They’re pushing the limits of making abortion illegal again.
Looks like Roe v. Wade will get tested under the current climate and make-up of the Court. 

Like I said before the literal language of the 2nd ammendment  makes ZERO mention of defense usage... just admit you are wrong and move on.   You are already admitting that the court system interprets the laws which means there are restrictions and nuances.... unless you can show me the exact words in the second amendment that mention defense.  Or specific classes of weapons. You are just wrong.

You really want to debate the 2A based on YOUR limited vocabulary and English skills?

Amendments are written using common English terms.  2A doesn't literally say "well trained and equipped", but it DOES literally say "well regulated," which Liberals try to spin into "regulated by passing a ton of laws to limit the right."

Just stop.

Hypocrite ?

Troll?

(rhetorical)