barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

You're trying to obfuscate by including all rapes. Except we're talking about a rape that leads to pregnancy where the woman wants to abort the baby. In those cases yes if we're going to take the life of another person then there needs to be some accounting of those responsible.

If a woman is raped and there is no pregnancy or she decides not to get an abortion than that's her decision. IDK maybe I'm more conscious of taking a life with no consequences than you are.

---

Actually, you're much worse. I don't believe it's a "life" until later in the process. You seem to believe it's a life much much earlier, which would make abortion murder (these are "beliefs", not "facts"). So you're saying that before 24 weeks something you consider murder is acceptable sometimes?

So YOU are advocating murders. I'm not.

The only two rational positions here are either you think it's murder, in which case ALL abortions (and IVF, etc) should be illegal regardless of the mental/physical suffering of the mother, or you don't think it's murder (until the latest stage of pregnancy), in which case the mother's rights to bodily autonomy should certainly come first.

---

You're putting words in my mouth and coming up with the wrong conclusion to make your ideas sound better. When does a zygote become an embryo become a fetus become a human? IOW when the abortion takes place is whether it's murder or not.

We can start with if the abortion fails and the baby is delivered live and then the decision is made to abort is that murder and work backwards.

---

Ok, I'm confused. So what was your problem with Roe, exactly? Regardless of whatever fan fiction you've read, here's all Roe did:

• During a pregnant person's first trimester (12 weeks), the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester (up tp 24 weeks), the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

So the states were already individually regulating their abortions, Roe was just a guardrail to prevent outright bans. If you're not interested in an outright ban, what problem could you possibly have had with Roe?

Wufskins said:

---

I thought Republicans said parents should be involved in their children's education?

The Tennessee Senate is a touch on fire today.

The Senate voted 26-5 to allow Tennessee teachers to carry guns on campus. Parents won't know which teachers are armed.

Parents were removed from the gallery. You can still hear them screaming outside the chamber. #tnleg

— Emily R. West (@emwest22) April 9, 2024

---

I would like to see the bill to confirm all the details. That said, yes, when one argues for people screaming in a government setting, then, you kick them out... well, that does sound hypocritical.

I've said it many time to my friends... be careful what you ask for...

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

You're trying to obfuscate by including all rapes. Except we're talking about a rape that leads to pregnancy where the woman wants to abort the baby. In those cases yes if we're going to take the life of another person then there needs to be some accounting of those responsible.

If a woman is raped and there is no pregnancy or she decides not to get an abortion than that's her decision. IDK maybe I'm more conscious of taking a life with no consequences than you are.

---

Actually, you're much worse. I don't believe it's a "life" until later in the process. You seem to believe it's a life much much earlier, which would make abortion murder (these are "beliefs", not "facts"). So you're saying that before 24 weeks something you consider murder is acceptable sometimes?

So YOU are advocating murders. I'm not.

The only two rational positions here are either you think it's murder, in which case ALL abortions (and IVF, etc) should be illegal regardless of the mental/physical suffering of the mother, or you don't think it's murder (until the latest stage of pregnancy), in which case the mother's rights to bodily autonomy should certainly come first.

---

You're putting words in my mouth and coming up with the wrong conclusion to make your ideas sound better. When does a zygote become an embryo become a fetus become a human? IOW when the abortion takes place is whether it's murder or not.

We can start with if the abortion fails and the baby is delivered live and then the decision is made to abort is that murder and work backwards.

---

Ok, I'm confused. So what was your problem with Roe, exactly? Regardless of whatever fan fiction you've read, here's all Roe did:

• During a pregnant person's first trimester (12 weeks), the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester (up tp 24 weeks), the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

So the states were already individually regulating their abortions, Roe was just a guardrail to prevent outright bans. If you're not interested in an outright ban, what problem could you possibly have had with Roe?

---

I'd like to answer...

1st) a court ruling should never be the law. The law is the law. If a court invalidates a law, then, it should go back to legislators for them to sort it out.

2nd) its my belief that this has always been a states issue

3rd) once it becomes a states issue, then, we can debate the law itself

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

You're trying to obfuscate by including all rapes. Except we're talking about a rape that leads to pregnancy where the woman wants to abort the baby. In those cases yes if we're going to take the life of another person then there needs to be some accounting of those responsible.

If a woman is raped and there is no pregnancy or she decides not to get an abortion than that's her decision. IDK maybe I'm more conscious of taking a life with no consequences than you are.

---

Actually, you're much worse. I don't believe it's a "life" until later in the process. You seem to believe it's a life much much earlier, which would make abortion murder (these are "beliefs", not "facts"). So you're saying that before 24 weeks something you consider murder is acceptable sometimes?

So YOU are advocating murders. I'm not.

The only two rational positions here are either you think it's murder, in which case ALL abortions (and IVF, etc) should be illegal regardless of the mental/physical suffering of the mother, or you don't think it's murder (until the latest stage of pregnancy), in which case the mother's rights to bodily autonomy should certainly come first.

---

You're putting words in my mouth and coming up with the wrong conclusion to make your ideas sound better. When does a zygote become an embryo become a fetus become a human? IOW when the abortion takes place is whether it's murder or not.

We can start with if the abortion fails and the baby is delivered live and then the decision is made to abort is that murder and work backwards.

---

Ok, I'm confused. So what was your problem with Roe, exactly? Regardless of whatever fan fiction you've read, here's all Roe did:

• During a pregnant person's first trimester (12 weeks), the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester (up tp 24 weeks), the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

So the states were already individually regulating their abortions, Roe was just a guardrail to prevent outright bans. If you're not interested in an outright ban, what problem could you possibly have had with Roe?

---

That's a nice 2 step dance. I take it you don't want to answer whether a failed abortion where the baby is born and the decision is made to then abort is murder or not.

We also know some states allowed abortions beyond the purpose established by Roe. IOW this guardrail you tout wasn't being followed. Ergo lots of court actions where SCOTUS decided it should be a state's issue and not a Federal issue. We've seen some states go with bans and some with no limitations. Roe was a badly written law and there's 1 word in your post that shows that, may now will or must.

As I've stated if the life of the mother is threatened and the fetus is 24 weeks or later there's a good possibility that life can be saved by delivering the baby which also solves the life of the mother issue.

So what is your objection to that? Not that I think you will answer since that doesn't seen to be your forte.

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

barelypure said:

---

You're trying to obfuscate by including all rapes. Except we're talking about a rape that leads to pregnancy where the woman wants to abort the baby. In those cases yes if we're going to take the life of another person then there needs to be some accounting of those responsible.

If a woman is raped and there is no pregnancy or she decides not to get an abortion than that's her decision. IDK maybe I'm more conscious of taking a life with no consequences than you are.

---

Actually, you're much worse. I don't believe it's a "life" until later in the process. You seem to believe it's a life much much earlier, which would make abortion murder (these are "beliefs", not "facts"). So you're saying that before 24 weeks something you consider murder is acceptable sometimes?

So YOU are advocating murders. I'm not.

The only two rational positions here are either you think it's murder, in which case ALL abortions (and IVF, etc) should be illegal regardless of the mental/physical suffering of the mother, or you don't think it's murder (until the latest stage of pregnancy), in which case the mother's rights to bodily autonomy should certainly come first.

---

You're putting words in my mouth and coming up with the wrong conclusion to make your ideas sound better. When does a zygote become an embryo become a fetus become a human? IOW when the abortion takes place is whether it's murder or not.

We can start with if the abortion fails and the baby is delivered live and then the decision is made to abort is that murder and work backwards.

---

Ok, I'm confused. So what was your problem with Roe, exactly? Regardless of whatever fan fiction you've read, here's all Roe did:

• During a pregnant person's first trimester (12 weeks), the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester (up tp 24 weeks), the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

So the states were already individually regulating their abortions, Roe was just a guardrail to prevent outright bans. If you're not interested in an outright ban, what problem could you possibly have had with Roe?

---

That's a nice 2 step dance. I take it you don't want to answer whether a failed abortion where the baby is born and the decision is made to then abort is murder or not.

We also know some states allowed abortions beyond the purpose established by Roe. IOW this guardrail you tout wasn't being followed. Ergo lots of court actions where SCOTUS decided it should be a state's issue and not a Federal issue. We've seen some states go with bans and some with no limitations. Roe was a badly written law and there's 1 word in your post that shows that, may now will or must.

As I've stated if the life of the mother is threatened and the fetus is 24 weeks or later there's a good possibility that life can be saved by delivering the baby which also solves the life of the mother issue.

So what is your objection to that? Not that I think you will answer since that doesn't seen to be your forte.

---

Again, no idea what you're talking about. Roe clearly said that after 24 weeks states could prohibit abortions almost all they want. Roe didn't make any "laws", it was a framework for states to make their own abortion laws. So whatever random awful scenario you're talking about (which again, is probably more fan fiction than reality anyway), it was the result of a state's law. How was getting rid of Roe and saying states can just do whatever they want going to change that?

You just tipped your hand, which of course we already knew. You guys don't want "states deciding" how they will handle abortions, you want stricter nationwide restrictions.

I see Arizona is doing their part to make sure Joe gets re-elected to office.

ncsupack1 said:

---

I see Arizona is doing their part to make sure Joe gets re-elected to office.

---

And white men that can't get pregnant.

Top Trump advocate: If women have to travel to another state to get an abortion it’s not the worst thing in the world pic.twitter.com/PjwpCYrxJa

— Biden-Harris HQ (@BidenHQ) April 9, 2024

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

No argument from me.

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

If it weren't catastrophic for women it'd be pretty comical. National Republicans are like a dog who finally caught the car, and is about to get dragged down the highway at 80 mph. "Wait, did we say all of these insane Republican state legislatures should decide? I declaya, we didn't mean that! But we clearly thought this through!"

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

Camp Spiker Massacre?

🔥🔥🔥

Scotty Films always on it https://t.co/ShmLXGfkCB

— Obv1ouslyNQth1ng (@Obv1ouslyNQth1n) April 10, 2024

Neither #NATO would have attacked #Iraq with false evidence, nor would #ISIS have come to Iraq.🩸 📆 🇮🇶 9 years of massacre in the Spiker camp.
🇮🇷 Today,the Shiites of Iraq are commemorating ninth anniversary of one of the most notorious and brutal massacres perpetrated by ISIS pic.twitter.com/5JgUy3jvek

— Mahmood Khan (@Mahmood88239370) June 12, 2023

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

Never forget that in 2022, the Daily Mail reported that over a fifth of Americans believed in the theory that there are "Satanic Pedophiles amongst the elite."

Netflix came out with a documentary about 4chan, Qanon, and how bad anonymous posting is for society now that anons have started an awakening movement that cannot be stopped.
This movie glows and reeks of fed panic and shows you how much independent journalists and dank memes… pic.twitter.com/bj5mawPvc5

— Green Lives Matter (@Ultrafrog17) April 8, 2024

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

Agree, most do change their stance over time. Heck, go back and read / watch Biden's stance on issues over time.

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Not sure it is.

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

caryking said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

He needs to take a stance. He's been pro choice, for a national ban, and now wants it to be left to the states unless leaving it to the states hurts his chances of winning in said state.

---

Hell, I saw a video, this morning, showing Biden in 2007 (I think) where his stance was very right winged. I think most politicians change their views over time. Here is an article talking about Biden…

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/13/joe-biden-2006-video-abortion

---

As a Catholic I think he's personally against abortion. As a politician he understands and is for individual choice. He personally would not advocate for an abortion on a personal level but doesn't think his beliefs should be the basis for everyone else.

---

Are you saying he's politically expedient?

---

I'm saying he wouldn't push for an abortion if given the decision. But that he believes that decision should not be a decision that the government is involved in.

---

How is that different than Trump?

---

Biden has always supported a woman's right to an abortion. Trump has gone from supporting a woman's right, to supporting a national ban, to now supporting it being a state's right. Except when a swing state goes too far.

In his 2007 book "Promises to Keep," Biden describes his beliefs and voting record on abortion as "middle of the road." He wrote that he doesn't think he has "a right to impose my view on the rest of society" and committed to protecting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. In a recent email to supporters, Biden underscored: "I refuse to impose my religious beliefs on other people."

ncsupack1 said:

---

In Trumps defense he said that Arizona needs to dial back that law. If that happens remains unseen. Some of these states are just going crazy. And ultimately going to cost them.

---

Trying to remember, did Trump also say that Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas need to dial it back? Because they already have identical abortion laws... outlawed with no exclusion for rape. And of course there are another half-dozen states with laws that in practice amount to total bans, also.

I don't know I was speaking to the Arizona law.

ncsupack1 said:

---

I don't know I was speaking to the Arizona law.

---

He didn't. In case you're wondering what his actual position is.

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

SmaptyWolf said:

---

ncsupack1 said:

---

I don't know I was speaking to the Arizona law.

---

He didn't. In case you're wondering what his actual position is.

---

I don't give a shi@ ….And no I wasn't

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

Agree completely with the plea deal with gun crimes.

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

lol at Tennessee Republicans

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/tn-rep-wants-1st-cousins-to-legally-marry

WolfpackUSC said:

---

barelypure said:

---

WolfpackUSC said:

---

Wufskins said:

---

Why?

NEW: Senate votes 22-6 to ban local ‘red flag’ laws in Tennessee

Red flag laws allow law enforcement to remove firearms from a person who is deemed by a court to be a threat to themselves or others.

Under @TNGOP control, Tennessee is a leader in gun violence. pic.twitter.com/AqWqVQqbwz

— Tennessee Senate Democrats (@TNSenateDems) April 11, 2024

---

Related, but unrelated. I've mentioned it before, but all gun purchases should require a permit.

---

Should we be required to have a permit to exercise our freedom of speech?
How about our freedom of religion? Or secure in our homes?
What other rights would you give away to a despotic government to feel safe?

Now as to Red Flag laws I'm not necessarily against them. There does need to be proof that the person is a danger to themselves or others and not just someone fears they may do something because they own a gun.

I'd rather see the DAs stop making deals by taking the gun charges off in order to get a guilty plea. Is someone commits a crime and uses a gun that needs to be prosecuted. A convicted person deserves the right to have their full rights returned to them. But before that if a felon is picked up with a gun then that needs to be prosecuted.

Just like 1st offense non-violent crimes may deserve release with no bail. But violent crimes and repeat offenders need to be kept locked up with high bail amounts.

---

I'm only talking about guns here, which in some cases, already require a permit. You cannot take the 2nd amendment literally, or else any citizen could buy any weapon they please, fully auto weapons, anti-tank weapons, mortars, etc…

I just think everybody needs a permit to own one.

---

If it's not literal, then what would you ban? By the way, go look into Virginia law, back in the day. It was damn near mandatory to own a cannon. Also, machine guns were available back then as well. No permit required!