Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that.
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.
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.
Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.
Pelosi just inadvertently admitted what the Democrat agenda is or at least one part of it and that is confiscating all guns.
Always has been....
I don't now - we'll see.Actually that's not true. Assets have been siezed from lots of companies using the National Emergency provision. Blocking property is seizing it. That's like almost half of the national emergencies. Do you just say things and make them up as you go and hope they are true?
Full auto isnt illegal as long as you have a FBI background check and proper licensing to own one.full auto is NOT illegal in all states Bulldog !! And it should be LEGAL in ALL States Bulldog .
View attachment 246010
1. If you are not a gun-grabbing socialist nut job, God bless you. You are in the MINORITY in the new Leftist-Hijacked Socialist Democrat Party (if you are a Democrat).What a goofy remark. I have guns myself. If you think I don't want anyone to have guns, you're nuts. Only a goofy gun nut thinks reasonable restrictions aren't a good thing, Idiot.
2. We have reasonable restrictions, and yes many of them are not working....and a large part of that problem is the lack of enforcement of those laws. Another part of that is going to remain a constant FACT - Bad People / Criminals will always be able to get guns and will always do bad things with them. Disarming law-abiding citizens will NOT stop that. It will just make it easier to commit their crimes.
3. There are a LOT of things that need to be addressed before putting more restrictions on weapons....like addressing our cultural addiction to gun violence... I am talking about all the violent movies, video games, etc... Hollywood clowns who often make their living starring in extremely violent movies then speaking out against gun violence are just hypocritical assholes I ignore.
The disintegration of the family unit, replacement of parents by the govt, schools, tv, video games, etc - what happened to sitting down at the table together, doing things together, getting to know your child, being the primary influence in their lives, teaching them, raising them, INVESTING in who your child becomes / is? I scratch my head and wonder when in cases like one of the school shooters home was searched and weapons, ammo, even bomb-making material were found just laying around in the basement and the parents said 'I had no idea......' REALLY? WTF?!
What does that do? Anything change at all there? Nope. Ok, moving forward then..."A national emergency on guns" sponsored by the democrat party after Obama authorized over 3,000 illegal weapons to be sent to Mexico. If democrats were serious about gun violence they would push for an indictment on the former president on a charge of accessory to murder of a Border Officer.
Example?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.A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that.
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.
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.
Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.
Actually that's not true. Assets have been siezed from lots of companies using the National Emergency provision. Blocking property is seizing it. That's like almost half of the national emergencies.
Do you just say things and make them up as you go and hope they are true?
I don't now - we'll see.Actually that's not true. Assets have been siezed from lots of companies using the National Emergency provision. Blocking property is seizing it. That's like almost half of the national emergencies. Do you just say things and make them up as you go and hope they are true?
Do you have a link to support your claim that half of the 59 National Emergencies that have been declared involved Property / Asset Seizure from companies?
Don't fall for the scary threats.Pelosi just inadvertently admitted what the Democrat agenda is or at least one part of it and that is confiscating all guns.
Always has been....
And honestly, I could care less if you call it Obama's Bollard steel slat fence, or Trumps bollard steel slat wall. I could care less if we build giant walls in the place the DHS and the DEA both say is where the least of our immigrant and drug problems are coming from.
I do care if you open up that can of worms allowing the next Democratic president to completely bypass Congress for anything they want.
That to me isn't worth Trump not wanting to try and get Mexico to pay for his wall.
How are any related to taking without just compensation?I don't now - we'll see.Actually that's not true. Assets have been siezed from lots of companies using the National Emergency provision. Blocking property is seizing it. That's like almost half of the national emergencies. Do you just say things and make them up as you go and hope they are true?
Do you have a link to support your claim that half of the 59 National Emergencies that have been declared involved Property / Asset Seizure from companies?
Sure!
List of national emergencies in the United States - Wikipedia
Like 18 of the past 21 are related to seizure of property in the US going to groups we deem hostile. Only ones that weren't were Iraq being declared legal, North Korea having some minor restrictions and pulled off state terrorism list, and imposing restrictions on countries that attempt to manipulate our elections.
Oh, declaring a national emergency and taking funds to set up universal background checks wouldn't be unconstitutional. And arguably making illegal magazines with a certain capacity would not be unconstitutional.Her latest declaration proves Pelosi is bat guano crazy. Building the border wall isn't unconstitutional. Declaring a national emergency against guns is unconstitutional. I'd ask if liberals ever stop to think before they open their stupid mouths but the thinking part makes it an oxymoron.
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
Example?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.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.
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.
Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.
Actually that's not true. Assets have been siezed from lots of companies using the National Emergency provision. Blocking property is seizing it. That's like almost half of the national emergencies.
Do you just say things and make them up as you go and hope they are true?
Do you seriously believe that background checks are illegal or that magazine capacities are illegal? We have or have had bothPelosi 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
What an idiot Pelosi is since there is the SECOND AMENDMENT establishing the right to bear arms, thus you can't by law prevent gun ownership. Meanwhile the Border Wall act was passed into law in 2006, thus the government by law are supposed to FUND IT!
All of mine were stolen that's my story and I'm sticking with itI wonder what police would do to confiscate weapons. And what the results would be in giving them willfully to making a stand.You got that backwards, snowflake. Your FEELINGS (and liberals / snowflakes are creatures driven by emotions, not facts) do not supersede what the Constitution says.Right, because your feels are more important than what the laws actually say.
YOUR belief that no one in the US 'needs' a semi-automatic weapon...or a weapon of any type...does not dismiss the American people's Constitutional Right to own them.
Many people have made the argument that if you take law abiding citizen's guns away it will not make this country safer. NO WHERE is this FACT more PROVEN than at all of these school shootings....where you have criminals with guns attacking and killing unarmed citizens.
Criminals don't obey laws. If you outlaw guns, do you REALLY think criminals will abide by them? NO. You will only endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.
And part of what drives the Liberal left is the overwhelming need to CONTROL other people and what they do.
You don't like guns so you want to take them from everyone instead of not buying one yourself.
Cory Booker is a Vegan and he wants to take the choice to eat a burger away from others.
etc........
Live your live.
Leave me / mine alone.
Stop trying to strip ME of MY Constitutional right@
How are any related to taking without just compensation?
Yes, you dumbass liberal still think the earth is flat, why else do you believe in global warming...Back in my day, in Cincinnati, in the middle of May it snowed. Yes it actually snowed. Yet, you dumbass liberals back then didnt try to scam out billions of tax dollars to make themselves richer by sayin Global Warming, but Global Cooling. They the liberals were going to save the day.. I wish they would make up their fucking minds...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.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 otherOf 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...We are boiling ourselves in our own planet,
Yes, crazy isn't it. Temps swinging like never before. North pole warming and the polar vortex moving south for days. Heck how many glaciers are gone from Glacier National Park in the past 50 years?
And yet people that seemingly didn't pass 5th grade science still think weather = climate.
Like, is that kind of decision to debate a topic that they start out by saying they are completely ignorant on it, a thing now?
"Hey, I can't tell the difference between weather and climate, but let me jump against this scientific fact based opinion with my lack of understanding of even the basics of it".
It's like if I was telling Oppenheimer he needed a bigger sledgehammer to split that atom for his atomic bomb since my lack of knowledge on nuclear fission made me an expert on that topic lol
Haha, yes Because weather is climate? that ranks right up there with the flat earth theory.
