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

[LordBrownTrout]

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 act like children who can't play together.

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

The decay continues.
.

Well, we are close to the end of our run. Republics usually dont last more than 250 years.

 

[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 act like children who can't play together.

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

The decay continues.
.

Well, we are close to the end of our run. Republics usually dont last more than 250 years.

It would be a self-inflicted wound.

I guess they all are.
.

 

[froggy]

They blow money left and right why not spend some on securing a problem that cannot fix later on down the road

Jason Chaffetz: Trump's border wall may get funding after all (thanks to this dirty little Washington secret)

 

[easyt65]

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.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

 

[Seawytch]

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

It is very exasperating. We are boiling ourselves in our own planet, destroying our food chain from the bottom up and these clowns are thinking of every clever way they can to be top dog in DC.

We are boiling ourselves in our own planet,

Of course nothing that just happened with the extreme FREEZE that set unprecedented records has any effect on our Boiling? Of course a liberals brain has boiled so much that there isnt any grey matter left, but that is to be expected...

Maybe someday you'll understand the difference between climate and weather.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

It's not tit for tat because right now, Pelosi isn't trying to use that tactic to bypass congress. Trump is. Instead of tit for tat, it's more like "If you change the rules, they will be changed for both sides" ------- "consider that before you allow him to change the rules"

 

[Hellokitty]

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's threat should be a wake-up call for the direction democrats want to take the country. Pelosi is claiming TRUMP's emergency order which is intent on securing the border is comparable to democrats trying to take away a constitutional right of US citizens.

TRUMP wants to secure US citizens rights and democrats want to take away US citizens rights while extending new rights to illegal immigrants.

 

[SSGT Bags]

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.

Really?
if you have 200,000 you can buy a tank with 9 working rounds!
you gun grabbers really need to learn your facts.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

So you've never read the 2nd Amendment?

 

[pismoe]

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.

------------------------------ you sound like a lefty to me , are you a young or old liberal , just asking SSquid .

 

[froggy]

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

It is very exasperating. We are boiling ourselves in our own planet, destroying our food chain from the bottom up and these clowns are thinking of every clever way they can to be top dog in DC.

We are boiling ourselves in our own planet,

Of course nothing that just happened with the extreme FREEZE that set unprecedented records has any effect on our Boiling? Of course a liberals brain has boiled so much that there isnt any grey matter left, but that is to be expected...

Maybe someday you'll understand the difference between climate and weather.

Overpopulation brings on more Vehicles which brings on more global warming

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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's threat should be a wake-up call for the direction democrats want to take the country. Pelosi is claiming TRUMP's emergency order which is intent on securing the border is comparable to democrats trying to take away a constitutional right of US citizens.

TRUMP wants to secure US citizens rights and democrats want to take away US citizens rights while extending new rights to illegal immigrants.

Thats exactly what it is. Dems are about taking rights away. This is the party of slavery and segregation. They just disguise their antics today in the form of wrapping up groups, ethnicities, races into nice little bouquets, in order to offer them trinkets from the treasury. Its a form of bondage and slavery. Same old dems. Different tactic.

 

[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.

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

Doesn't say anything about automatic weapons or nuclear weapons either. You think those should be allowed?

 

[easyt65]

They blow money left and right why not spend some on securing a problem that cannot fix later on down the road

Jason Chaffetz: Trump's border wall may get funding after all (thanks to this dirty little Washington secret)

The Insane Leftists Socialist's Democrats' rush to support and enact AOC's Socialist Sci-Fi nation-destroying plan - pass a law to attempt to achieve what is said to be impossible to achieve using technology that does not exist that would cost more money thane we could ever pay and that would destroy the nation in the process - is evidence that the MONEY for the wall has NOTHING to do with the Democrats' opposition to the wall.

They have chosen to stand with illegals over Americans and choose party over country to attempt to hurt the President's 2020 election chances. That's in, their primary goal, in a nut shell.

And for all of their lying claims to wanting to enforce existing law, their actions prove they are liars. On top of operating Federal Law-violating Sanctuary Cities that protect illegal human traffickers/rapists/thieves/cop killers, and on top of being repeatedly being caught in illegal election fraud/crimes, this latest 'security bill' basically establishes a 'Mail-Order Human Trafficking' process.

The Bill would allow illegals in the US to send for illegal under-age CHILDREN to be brought to the US and picked up by non-relatives, and if the security check on the adult flags them as a criminal (having committed crimes to include child abuse/rape, etc,,,) it prevents ICE from being notified...and they can still get their delivered illegal kids.

 

[easyt65]

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.

Doesn't say anything about automatic weapons or nuclear weapons either. You think those should be allowed?

This is the same type of twisting Liberal logic they used / are using to justify killing 7lb perfectly formed babies just seconds before the come out of the womb and even to justify now delivering babies and then killing them.

Cut out the legalistic BS.

'The Right to bear arms...this right will not be infringed upon'. PERIOD

 

[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.

Doesn't say anything about automatic weapons or nuclear weapons either. You think those should be allowed?

A nuclear weapon isnt a gun. No, no one should have access to nuclear weapons. Full auto access takes a six week background check.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You're right. It does refer to something though...now what was that again? Something about a well regulated militia? Why do gun fetishists forget that part?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Doesn't say anything about automatic weapons or nuclear weapons either. You think those should be allowed?

A nuclear weapon isnt a gun. No, no one should have access to nuclear weapons. Full auto access takes a six week background check.

The Constitution doesn't say guns, it says arms. Nuclear weapons are arms.

 

[easyt65]

Maybe someday you'll understand the difference between climate and weather.

Maybe someday Al Gore will admit that the 'Fear-Mongering predictions he made about ice melting and flooding all coastal cities - that was supposed to have happened by now - were pulled out of his ass in order to sell his 'Carbon Credit Scam'....

 

[pismoe]

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.

Doesn't say anything about automatic weapons or nuclear weapons either. You think those should be allowed?

----------------------------- the Second Amendment refers to Americans having the same weapons issued to the American Combat soldier . Full Auto weapons are legal in most USA States but not Nukes as combat soldiers don't commonly carry nukes Bulldog and Seawitch .