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.
No one has a constitutional right to property that can be shown to have been illegally obtained. That is not a taking.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 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?
Sure... I mean besides the current one which requires Eminent Domain to be used to build the wall where Trump has said he want's it built?
Lets see.
Clintons' "Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers." is still on the books. Which allows the FBI and DEA to take personal property from drug traffickers and is used all the time in the USA.
And the transcript of the senate report on that emergency powers law they wrote: It is literally the FIRST THING they make clear the President has the power to do.
Senate Report 93-549: War and Emergency Power Statutes
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
I've got to ask since you'd think these are pretty commonplace knowledge in the USA? Are you foreign born and just new to the US, or actually ignorant of what goes on here?
Go Nancy!
Yes it would, as any restrictions on a person to be free in the country as long as they dont break the law, is unconstitutional. So lets say Blinkie Pelosi enacts a law that all 30 round magazines are now illegal, does that mean that all 200 million gun owners are now breaking the law? Do you think the democrats have the balls to try to enforce the law and bring all 200 million US citizens to justice, while they cant even bring an illegal border crosser to jail?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.
No one has a constitutional right to property that can be shown to have been illegally obtained. That is not a taking.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.
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?
Sure... I mean besides the current one which requires Eminent Domain to be used to build the wall where Trump has said he want's it built?
Lets see.
Clintons' "Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions With Significant Narcotics Traffickers." is still on the books. Which allows the FBI and DEA to take personal property from drug traffickers and is used all the time in the USA.
And the transcript of the senate report on that emergency powers law they wrote: It is literally the FIRST THING they make clear the President has the power to do.
Senate Report 93-549: War and Emergency Power Statutes
"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."
I've got to ask since you'd think these are pretty commonplace knowledge in the USA? Are you foreign born and just new to the US, or actually ignorant of what goes on here?
I'm not sure why you'd mention eminent domain. Any private land taken, and perhaps made less valuable even it not taken, will have to be paid for.
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
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!
Agreed. But you can highly regulate it. You can also declare an emergency
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.
You are asking how that Congressional law which congress said gives the President the power to "seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities...."
gives the president power to sieze property or commodities?
Like is english not a language you understand?
Pelosi is full of shit.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
A President can NOT declare a 'National Emergency' to violate the Constitution / infringe on American's Constitutional Rights.
That is what she is talking about - that is not what Trump is doing!
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.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...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.
You were asking a theoretical but now try to change the goal posts.Yes it would, as any restrictions on a person to be free in the country as long as they dont break the law, is unconstitutional. So lets say Blinkie Pelosi enacts a law that all 30 round magazines are now illegal, does that mean that all 200 million gun owners are now breaking the law? Do you think the democrats have the balls to try to enforce the law and bring all 200 million US citizens to justice, while they cant even bring an illegal border crosser to jail?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.
Never said I did, snowflake. Being a Native American and understanding things like injustices being perpetrated against people, I understand them and do not justify them. What FDR did and what Trump is doing are not even the same thing.Well, I am glad to see that you have let FDR off the hook about those Japanese-American internment camps.....
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
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!
Agreed. But you can highly regulate it. You can also declare an emergency
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.
You are asking how that Congressional law which congress said gives the President the power to "seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities...."
gives the president power to sieze property or commodities?
Like is english not a language you understand?
If a property is illegally obtained and the gummit can prove that, it's not a taking. So, your basic premise in takings in a misunderstanding.
But you're closer to the power in terms of the gummit denying a person or company to do something with their property that would be legal without the executive order. Like preventing a union from striking.
But I'm not sure why you are reaching so far. Assuming courts agree an emergency exists just because a potus says so, then all Trump is doing is moving money from one appropriation to another. Court's would also have to find that congress has the power to delegate its appropriation power to the executive.
But takings are just not relevant to the issue of Trump's wall emergency
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!
Grow a pair. Or at least argue what is rationally at issue. Trump is not proposing a taking for fuck's sakePelosi 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!
Agreed. But you can highly regulate it. You can also declare an emergency
How are any related to taking without just compensation?I don't now - we'll see.
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.
You are asking how that Congressional law which congress said gives the President the power to "seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities...."
gives the president power to sieze property or commodities?
Like is english not a language you understand?
If a property is illegally obtained and the gummit can prove that, it's not a taking. So, your basic premise in takings in a misunderstanding.
But you're closer to the power in terms of the gummit denying a person or company to do something with their property that would be legal without the executive order. Like preventing a union from striking.
But I'm not sure why you are reaching so far. Assuming courts agree an emergency exists just because a potus says so, then all Trump is doing is moving money from one appropriation to another. Court's would also have to find that congress has the power to delegate its appropriation power to the executive.
But takings are just not relevant to the issue of Trump's wall emergency
Again what you are doing is adding your uninformed opinion to the laws regulating the National Emergencies act.
Please if you want to join, show me where that restriction that illegally obtained property has to be proven?
Remember most of these come to outlaw support for foreign enemies. Like the ability to seize a shipment of firearms from a US weapons manufacturer to ISIS. The National Emergency is what makes that illegal.
So please find the spot where Congress in their provisions of Federal Law now in effect delegating to the Executive Extraordinary authority in time of National Emergency law puts in the part you are saying.
Sounded more like a threatDo 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!
Did you even read what Pelosi said as her justification for saying this: "Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns" ?
She explains her irrational idea of the possibility:
"A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."
Pelosi noted that Thursday marked the one-year anniversary of the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 students and faculty dead. She argued that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S.
"Let's talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America," Pelosi said. "That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.
"But a Democratic president can do that."
The so called epidemic of gun violence isn't supported by the data, which shows about 50% reduction in violent crimes since the peak year. The misleading bullshit narrative about gun violence has been pushed hard by the Media and stupid leftists, this in a nation that has added Concealed carry laws, AND the vast increase number of firearms in circulation since that peak year of 1980 of 10.2 deaths per capita to 5.3 murders per capita in 2017.
Look at the common denominators for the real cause of those ugly mass killings, they are either high on drugs, mentally ill or both and most of them are democrats by ideology and/or family.
Also has she forgotten that Clinton and Obama have THIRTY times declared an emergency, she make it seems this is some new idea being promoted by Trump who has already made three declarations.
and you can bet your farm that on day one of his second term, Obama would have mandated background checksDo 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!
Did you even read what Pelosi said as her justification for saying this: "Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns" ?
She explains her irrational idea of the possibility:
"A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."
Pelosi noted that Thursday marked the one-year anniversary of the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 students and faculty dead. She argued that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S.
"Let's talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America," Pelosi said. "That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.
"But a Democratic president can do that."
The so called epidemic of gun violence isn't supported by the data, which shows about 50% reduction in violent crimes since the peak year. The misleading bullshit narrative about gun violence has been pushed hard by the Media and stupid leftists, this in a nation that has added Concealed carry laws, AND the vast increase number of firearms in circulation since that peak year of 1980 of 10.2 deaths per capita to 5.3 murders per capita in 2017.
Look at the common denominators for the real cause of those ugly mass killings, they are either high on drugs, mentally ill or both and most of them are democrats by ideology and/or family.
Also has she forgotten that Clinton and Obama have THIRTY times declared an emergency, she make it seems this is some new idea being promoted by Trump who has already made three declarations.
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?
and you can bet your farm that on day one of his second term, Obama would have mandated background checksDo 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!
Did you even read what Pelosi said as her justification for saying this: "Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns" ?
She explains her irrational idea of the possibility:
"A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."
Pelosi noted that Thursday marked the one-year anniversary of the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 students and faculty dead. She argued that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S.
"Let's talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America," Pelosi said. "That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.
"But a Democratic president can do that."
The so called epidemic of gun violence isn't supported by the data, which shows about 50% reduction in violent crimes since the peak year. The misleading bullshit narrative about gun violence has been pushed hard by the Media and stupid leftists, this in a nation that has added Concealed carry laws, AND the vast increase number of firearms in circulation since that peak year of 1980 of 10.2 deaths per capita to 5.3 murders per capita in 2017.
Look at the common denominators for the real cause of those ugly mass killings, they are either high on drugs, mentally ill or both and most of them are democrats by ideology and/or family.
Also has she forgotten that Clinton and Obama have THIRTY times declared an emergency, she make it seems this is some new idea being promoted by Trump who has already made three declarations.
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.
I'm not the one asserting a potus cannot legally mandate background checks for ALL gun sales, including private sales.and you can bet your farm that on day one of his second term, Obama would have mandated background checksDo 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!
Did you even read what Pelosi said as her justification for saying this: "Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns" ?
She explains her irrational idea of the possibility:
"A Democratic president can declare emergencies, as well," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."
Pelosi noted that Thursday marked the one-year anniversary of the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 students and faculty dead. She argued that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S.
"Let's talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America," Pelosi said. "That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.
"But a Democratic president can do that."
The so called epidemic of gun violence isn't supported by the data, which shows about 50% reduction in violent crimes since the peak year. The misleading bullshit narrative about gun violence has been pushed hard by the Media and stupid leftists, this in a nation that has added Concealed carry laws, AND the vast increase number of firearms in circulation since that peak year of 1980 of 10.2 deaths per capita to 5.3 murders per capita in 2017.
Look at the common denominators for the real cause of those ugly mass killings, they are either high on drugs, mentally ill or both and most of them are democrats by ideology and/or family.
Also has she forgotten that Clinton and Obama have THIRTY times declared an emergency, she make it seems this is some new idea being promoted by Trump who has already made three declarations.
You are only 21 years out of date:
LINK
"The NICS was launched in 1998 to provide information in minutes that before had taken up to five days.
The NICS scans information from three federal databases:
- National Crime Information Center (NCIC): Contains information about fugitives from justice, terrorists, and those subject to domestic violence protection orders.
In at least 90 percent of cases, the background check is completed almost immediately. If the dealer gets the green light, the person can purchase the gun without further questions.
- Interstate Identification Index (III): Fingerprints of people charged with felonies or misdemeanors are submitted to this federal system by all states.
- NICS Index: Created specifically for the NICS to help in conducting gun-related background checks. Local, state, tribal, and federal agencies contribute to this database any disqualifying information about people that isn't otherwise available.
Since 1998, the NICS has processed more than 282 million federal background checks but the FBI says that number does not represent the total firearms sold."
The Parkland killer obtained his weapons legally based on his background check.
