Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

[SandSquid]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

1. Prove that any gun type or magazine causes deaths. That's obviated by the gang violence deaths and other gun related deaths. In England murders by knife happen more than guns, you going to outlaw knives? Your 2200% is bullshit when you factor in the illicit drugs coming in thru the southern border, see graph below. A true national emergency.

2. Just because 90% of the drugs SEIZED are at the POEs doesn't mean that's where the drugs enter the US. My brother was on the southern border in the AF and they tracked the cartel drug planes coming into the US but were not allowed to work with the DEA or law enforcement. The Border Patrol knows where they need more wall, and Trump will get it for them, in spite of the traitorous democrats.

And that's a great showing of the drug problem. So knowing that Opioids are the deadliest, and the majority of those deaths come from prescription drug abuse, please tell me how the wall solves this.

Fastest growing of them is Fentanyl... Of what we found crossing the southern border they are very poor quality (according to the DEA saying 7% purity on average). The prime stuff is coming in shipments from China and through our norther border (90% purity). How does this wall help there?

And the other Big one... Heroin, which as you saw the DEA says ports of entry are the top method.

You are literally making the point. Listen to the DEA. They keep telling us these issues are ports of entry. Again, and again and again. That's better than just putting on a blindfold and saying "well I think it's here based on a lack of facts" and building a wall over North Dakota and hoping that solves it.

1. Provide a link proving that the majority of opioid deaths come from legal prescriptions

2. The DEA says "90% of drugs SEIZED is at the POEs". No one knows how much illicit drug traffic there is in total.

3. I believe in an "all of the above" solution. More technology to detect drugs crossing at the POEs. Then we need more wall to stop trafficking between POEs. Then we need a coordinated effort between the military and law enforcement to stop the cartel planes, submarines, boats, tunnels, and other means of drug transportation.

4. Don't forget to address human trafficking as well as drug trafficking.

Is this just something you have no knowledge on? Maybe you ought to go back and educate yourself first on this topic before continuing?

Where Do Opioids Come From: Cartels, China, or Neighbors

"The CDC cites about 40 percent of these opioid-related deaths involved prescription opioids, 37 percent involves heroin, and a study published in May of this year by The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that roughly 46 percent involved fentanyl."

And... According to the DEA 2018 report on drugs...

"Mexican TCOs control the movement of heroin that enters the United States across the SWB, until it reaches its destination in cities all over the United States. The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers, where the heroin is co-mingled with legal goods"

Yes they also report that the majority of the intercepts are there as well..


Again, if you aren't educated on this topic, that's fine. Maybe choose a topic you aren't ignorant on? But you literally just said that they are who should be listened to. They say the majority of trafficking is at Ports of Entry. Now you seem to want to discredit them when you have been educated on their studies and results. Why the ANTI-DEA stance?


And great point on human trafficking.. Where Visa overstays even under the Trump administration have outnumbered illegal border crossings for over 10 straight years now.

Also why are they coming? Oh for the jobs that business owners provide, such as their decades of supporting illegal immigrants in the US by Trump Tower, Trump Golf clubs, Trump Hotels, Mar-a-Lago, etc. Should we go after those that run the businesses that reward illegal immigrants like we go after Drug Dealers? Is Trump literally the cause of this emergency?

 

[SandSquid]

What is missing from all of this "debate" is just whom do these people who are in love with their guns, of all types and sizes and magazines, want to shoot.

My father had guns, at least one pistol, rifles, and I shot them. But he also taught me never to aim them at a living being except in dire circumstances.

Now we have 2nd Amendment crazies, pretending that evil people are invading us, coming in through our doors and windows! This is NOT actually occurring.

Just whom do these gun-crazies want to shoot?

I agree.... I have my guns, and this use of Emergency powers scares the crap out of me. Because you can literally destroy the gun industry without ever touching the 1st amendment.

 

[The Original Tree]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

When is enough going to be enough all they do is fight amongst the parties and never get nothing accomplished that needs to be done nothing that they're hired to do they do nothing but bicker bicker bicker with each other

Pelosi still working for the Drug Cartels, I see.

 

[kyzr]

1. You stated that the majority of drug deaths was from prescription drugs, the link you provided states that 40% are (not a majority). I was surprised that it was that high, why are prescription drugs so deadly? Must be taking too many? It also stares that 37% was heroin and 46% Fentanyl, (which doesn't add up to 100%?)

2. Like the article knows the exact sum total of illicit drugs entering the US, and how they enter. They don't. They are guessing.

3. Visa overstays has nothing to do with human trafficking. Human trafficking is essentially a new slave trade. Point taken that employers need stricter penalties for hiring illegals.

 

[BULLDOG]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

Another dumb move by Pelosi (if that is true).

Our political leaders have reduced themselves to using playground antics.

Trump is the one who is driving this particular tactic. If he can get away with it, why shouldn't anyone else?

You can’t expect better from the blob, you can and should from a Liberal

So far, no liberal has tried to use that tactic. It's only been pointed out that if Trump is allowed to open that door, it will be open for others to use. If others using his same method scares them that much, they should consider not opening that door. I don't think Pelosi wants anyone to be able to claim a national emergency to bypass congress, but if it is allowed, it will be allowed for both sides.

 

[BULLDOG]

What is missing from all of this "debate" is just whom do these people who are in love with their guns, of all types and sizes and magazines, want to shoot.

My father had guns, at least one pistol, rifles, and I shot them. But he also taught me never to aim them at a living being except in dire circumstances.

Now we have 2nd Amendment crazies, pretending that evil people are invading us, coming in through our doors and windows! This is NOT actually occurring.

Just whom do these gun-crazies want to shoot?

I agree.... I have my guns, and this use of Emergency powers scares the crap out of me. Because you can literally destroy the gun industry without ever touching the 1st amendment.

Congress should consider that before they allow Trump to get away with that tactic.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Exactly. And we've set precedent that limitations on types of arms is ok, and we both know that there is no constitutional right for gun makers or ammunition makers to not be held fiscally responsible if their weapons are used in murder. Both could easily be used in a national emergency if this pandora's box is opened.

Equal protection? Due Process?

There are a host of non-constitution legal defenses as well. First and foremost, the manufacturer cannot be held liable when the murderer's intentional actions are the sole proximate cause of the murder. There is OODDLLES of precedent on that.

And, we have never had a more pro-gun SCOTUS, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on the limitation precedent.

.

 

[froggy]

The main reason Democrats want to keep the Border open is.

Study finds more immigrants equals more Democrats --- and more losses for GOP

 

[BULLDOG]

Exactly. And we've set precedent that limitations on types of arms is ok, and we both know that there is no constitutional right for gun makers or ammunition makers to not be held fiscally responsible if their weapons are used in murder. Both could easily be used in a national emergency if this pandora's box is opened.

Equal protection? Due Process?

There are a host of non-constitution legal defenses as well. First and foremost, the manufacturer cannot be held liable when the murderer's intentional actions are the sole proximate cause of the murder. There is OODDLLES of precedent on that.

And, we have never had a more pro-gun SCOTUS, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on the limitation precedent.

.

A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used lightly., like Trump is trying to do.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that.

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's constantly tell us they are not coming for our guns, then Pelosi speaks the truth.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Can we declare a national emergency on both parties?

 

[BULLDOG]

A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that.

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

Yes, but, sadly, all of those laws on firearm types of restrictions are technically unconstitutional as well. The words "shall not be infringed" apply here.

One of the things the left like to do is take things to the extreme and say "well, does that mean you should be able to own a tank, or rockets, or nukes?". My answer to that is, when the framers were writing the 2nd, it's clear by the text of the amendment, and by supporting documents (federalist papers), they were referring guns, muskets being what they had at the time. The 2nd amendment was written In 1791, the first automatic weapon wasn't made until 1892.

 

[candycorn]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

Another dumb move by Pelosi (if that is true).

Our political leaders have reduced themselves to using playground antics.

Trump is the one who is driving this particular tactic. If he can get away with it, why shouldn't anyone else?

You can’t expect better from the blob, you can and should from a Liberal

So far, no liberal has tried to use that tactic. It's only been pointed out that if Trump is allowed to open that door, it will be open for others to use. If others using his same method scares them that much, they should consider not opening that door. I don't think Pelosi wants anyone to be able to claim a national emergency to bypass congress, but if it is allowed, it will be allowed for both sides.

Promising “tit for tat” makes one look small. And shallow.

 

[SandSquid]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

Yes, but, sadly, all of those laws on firearm types of restrictions are technically unconstitutional as well. The words "shall not be infringed" apply here.

One of the things the left like to do is take things to the extreme and say "well, does that mean you should be able to own a tank, or rockets, or nukes?". My answer to that is, when the framers were writing the 2nd, it's clear by the text of the amendment, and by supporting documents (federalist papers), they were referring guns, muskets being what they had at the time. The 2nd amendment was written In 1791, the first automatic weapon wasn't made until 1892.

Actually many have been challenged in court and proven Constitutional time and again, so your statement is in fact incorrect and untrue according to US law. You can not carry your pistol onto a domestic flight on your person even though the Constitution gives you the right to bear arms.

And yes they were referring to muskets... So I guess an apples to apples comparison for you would be that only single shot, non rifled, non-cartridge long rifles can be allowed under the first amendment.

 

[BULLDOG]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

Yes, but, sadly, all of those laws on firearm types of restrictions are technically unconstitutional as well. The words "shall not be infringed" apply here.

One of the things the left like to do is take things to the extreme and say "well, does that mean you should be able to own a tank, or rockets, or nukes?". My answer to that is, when the framers were writing the 2nd, it's clear by the text of the amendment, and by supporting documents (federalist papers), they were referring guns, muskets being what they had at the time. The 2nd amendment was written In 1791, the first automatic weapon wasn't made until 1892.

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

 

[SandSquid]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

Yes, but, sadly, all of those laws on firearm types of restrictions are technically unconstitutional as well. The words "shall not be infringed" apply here.

One of the things the left like to do is take things to the extreme and say "well, does that mean you should be able to own a tank, or rockets, or nukes?". My answer to that is, when the framers were writing the 2nd, it's clear by the text of the amendment, and by supporting documents (federalist papers), they were referring guns, muskets being what they had at the time. The 2nd amendment was written In 1791, the first automatic weapon wasn't made until 1892.

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

or the flip side that by allowing guns they were making way for all advancements in guns. Therefore by allowing private militia's to own cannons, all current artillery should be allowed.

You kinda get stuck either way.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

Yes, but, sadly, all of those laws on firearm types of restrictions are technically unconstitutional as well. The words "shall not be infringed" apply here.

One of the things the left like to do is take things to the extreme and say "well, does that mean you should be able to own a tank, or rockets, or nukes?". My answer to that is, when the framers were writing the 2nd, it's clear by the text of the amendment, and by supporting documents (federalist papers), they were referring guns, muskets being what they had at the time. The 2nd amendment was written In 1791, the first automatic weapon wasn't made until 1892.

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

'the right to keep and bear arms". Doesnt say anything about this applying only to muskets.

 

[Mac1958]

When is enough going to be enough all they do is fight amongst the parties and never get nothing accomplished that needs to be done nothing that they're hired to do they do nothing but bicker bicker bicker with each other

This is what happens when the two ends behave like children who can't play together.

We end up governing by Executive Order and "national emergency".

The decay continues.
.