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.
In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.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.
You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.
Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.
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.
You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.
And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.
Don't let Nancy make a fool of yourself. The Democrats' opposition to the border fence is purely for partisan reasons, but since the Democrats supported spending billions of dollars to build hundreds of miles of border fence in 2013 in Chuck Schumer's bill, S. 744, and continued to support it right up until President Trump embraced the idea, building the border fence is hardly a partisan, only the present opposition to it is partisan.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.
You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.
And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.
Not really, because the issue would be whether claiming a national emergency for partisan purposes was valid, not magazine capacity. If Trump is allowed to get away with it this time, that precedent will be set..
No sir, it was referring to whatever weapon was current at the time. Then, it was muskets, because that's all they had, today, its auto and semi auto weapons.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.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.
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.
And there it is. Like i said previously, the left always takes the arguments to the extreme. "Well, we should be able to own nukes and shoulder fires rockets.."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.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.
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?
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.
You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.
And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.
Not really, because the issue would be whether claiming a national emergency for partisan purposes was valid, not magazine capacity. If Trump is allowed to get away with it this time, that precedent will be set..
You can declare a national emergency, but not take steps that violate our Constitution. The Constitution rules over any law or policy.
It doesnt say the militia was to be armed, it says the people are to be armed.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.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.
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?
And there it is. Like i said previously, the left always takes the arguments to the extreme. "Well, we should be able to own nukes and shoulder fires rockets.."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.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.
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?
Honestly, there is no way to know what the founders would have thought about these types of weapons, as they could have never foresaw nuclear weapons. What they could see is hand held firearms. When they wrote the 2A, they said "arms". They could have said specifically "muskets", but it is possible they were forward looking enough to realize that guns would evolve over time.
lol There is no precedent being set. A national emergency is anything the President says it is. The question is, do the powers allowed to him under the National Emergencies Act allow him to do what he wants to do? On the question of building a border fence, the answer is, yes, but on the question of amending the 2nd amendment, the answer is, no. That's why Obama didn't declare a national emergency to impose restrictions on gun ownership. That's also why Nancy is full of shit and making a fool out of you.In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.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.
You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.
Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.
Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.
Yes, but if you read about the reason for the 2A, it's clear they were talking about guns.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.
It's not a question of belief. You can check the facts for yourself, but if your political faith doesn't allow you to check facts, you are free to believe whatever makes you comfortable.Don't let Nancy make a fool of yourself. The Democrats' opposition to the border fence is purely for partisan reasons, but since the Democrats supported spending billions of dollars to build hundreds of miles of border fence in 2013 in Chuck Schumer's bill, S. 744, and continued to support it right up until President Trump embraced the idea, building the border fence is hardly a partisan, only the present opposition to it is partisan.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.
You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.
And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.
Not really, because the issue would be whether claiming a national emergency for partisan purposes was valid, not magazine capacity. If Trump is allowed to get away with it this time, that precedent will be set..
You are certainly free to believe that.
And there it is. Like i said previously, the left always takes the arguments to the extreme. "Well, we should be able to own nukes and shoulder fires rockets.."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.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.
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?
Honestly, there is no way to know what the founders would have thought about these types of weapons, as they could have never foresaw nuclear weapons. What they could see is hand held firearms. When they wrote the 2A, they said "arms". They could have said specifically "muskets", but it is possible they were forward looking enough to realize that guns would evolve over time.
lol There is no precedent being set. A national emergency is anything the President says it is. The question is, do the powers allowed to him under the National Emergencies Act allow him to do what he wants to do? On the question of building a border fence, the answer is, yes, but on the question of amending the 2nd amendment, the answer is, no. That's why Obama didn't declare a national emergency to impose restrictions on gun ownership. That's also why Nancy is full of shit and making a fool out of you.In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.
Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.
Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63055758/1129695645.jpg.0.jpg)
The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.
“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”
Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”
“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”
Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.
“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”
More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns
What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!
Right, the people are (are potentially) the militia. The military is not/was not the militia.------------------------------ Shall not be INFRINGED Seawitch .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?
Right, as part of a well regulated militia. Why'd those old farmers put that in there?
lol There is no precedent being set. A national emergency is anything the President says it is. The question is, do the powers allowed to him under the National Emergencies Act allow him to do what he wants to do? On the question of building a border fence, the answer is, yes, but on the question of amending the 2nd amendment, the answer is, no. That's why Obama didn't declare a national emergency to impose restrictions on gun ownership. That's also why Nancy is full of shit and making a fool out of you.In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.
Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.
Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.
Declaring a national emergency doesn't amend any law. It just ignores them.
Agreed.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).
Imposing legislation that runs counter to the Constitution is not one of the powers the National Emergencies Act allows to the President.lol There is no precedent being set. A national emergency is anything the President says it is. The question is, do the powers allowed to him under the National Emergencies Act allow him to do what he wants to do? On the question of building a border fence, the answer is, yes, but on the question of amending the 2nd amendment, the answer is, no. That's why Obama didn't declare a national emergency to impose restrictions on gun ownership. That's also why Nancy is full of shit and making a fool out of you.In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.
Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.
Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.
Declaring a national emergency doesn't amend any law. It just ignores them.
Imposing legislation that runs counter to the Constitution is not one of the powers the National Emergencies Act allows to the President.lol There is no precedent being set. A national emergency is anything the President says it is. The question is, do the powers allowed to him under the National Emergencies Act allow him to do what he wants to do? On the question of building a border fence, the answer is, yes, but on the question of amending the 2nd amendment, the answer is, no. That's why Obama didn't declare a national emergency to impose restrictions on gun ownership. That's also why Nancy is full of shit and making a fool out of you.In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.
Well, no. If Trump is allowed to set that precedent, then declaring a national emergency becomes just another partisan tool to be used by either party. Any future president from either party will be free to do it. Pelosi is correct to point that out.
Declaring a national emergency doesn't amend any law. It just ignores them.
Actually no, "shall not be infringed" is specific language to make sure that gun control is not imposed upon the people. The 2A was really a way of saying to the government "hands off the guns".. which is why I originally opened with my statement about current gun laws technically being illegal.----------------------------- 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 .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 fact of the matter is that gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms.
