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

[danielpalos]

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.

No, not true. We are being invaded by foreigners and Congress refuses to act. Drugs are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. Americans are being tortured and murdered. Some are getting killed in DUI's. Our agents apprehend hundreds of thousands of foreigner a year illegally crossing our border. Our Border Patrol stressed the need for these walls. That's different than saying Americans killing each other with guns is a national emergency.

If this doesn't justify a national emergency, what does?



And oh yes, thanks to Democrats, there are more on the way.

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I will believe the right wing when they Insist on mustering because we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

We have fewer crossing the border since 1971. We are at a 48 year low.

Okay, do you have a point or something with that comment?

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.

successful at what? we have No Immigration or Wall building clauses.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

Yesterday, Trump declared "National Emergency". The Wall will be built one way or the other. Trump gave The Wall to the Army Corps of Engineers.

we need the simulator, first.

 

[danielpalos]

Just pointing out your stupid invasion claim is bullshit.

Obviously you didn't watch the video, did you?

Let me ask: If your town or city had 12 armed robberies a year, and they were able to bring that down to 6 armed robberies a year, would you say there is no need for further actions to stop the other 6? Of course not. You want to see all armed robberies stopped, and if not, bring them down as much as possible.

Border apprehensions increased in 2018 – especially for migrant families

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.

The only purpose that medieval solution to an almost nonexistent 21st century problem could serve is to prevent your orange buffoon from being shown to be a fool yet again. Did you forget he said Mexico would pay for it?

That's a leftist hangup, not ours. We don't get brainwashed by our politicians and media like you on the left do. Do you know why they taught you to bring up who's paying for it? Because you have no argument against the wall because barriers work.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

walls don't increase GDP.

 

[Nova78]

Is she still alive ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Wrong - Pelosi said no such thing.

She said that if Trump wanted to declare a national emergency, it should be about gun violence.

“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.” ibid

She said nothing about a future Democratic president declaring an emergency about guns, gun laws, or their ‘confiscation.’

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.” ibid

Conveniently leaving out what she said before that statement. She said she wished Trump would declare an emergency on the epidemic of gun violence. That's something a Democrat President can do.



Fast forward to 1:25 minutes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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!

Yesterday, Trump declared "National Emergency". The Wall will be built one way or the other. Trump gave The Wall to the Army Corps of Engineers.

No he didn't. Although he did take about 3.5 million from the Military Housing for upkeep and improvement. Guess those troops and their families living at or below poverty level will understand, right?

 

[Clementine]

More gun violence today. Speaker Pelosi is correct. Gun violence is a real national emergency - not like Trump's manufactured fake crisis at the border.

More have been killed by illegal aliens than mass shootings. Terrorists can enter through the border. Human traffickers and drug runners own the border. 100,000 people missing each year and many likely victims of human traffickers.

We have a right to own guns. People do not have a right to enter illegally, kidnap, rape or murder.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

And nuclear arms.

Read the thoughts if the framers when they wrote it. The intent was clear

 

[Andylusion]

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!

Yeah, please do. Try it.

I think Trump is making a bad move... but to claim that defending the country from illegal activity, is the same as stripping constitutional rights from legal, law abiding citizens, is the same?

LOL! Please try that. Please try and declare a national emergency to take legal rights from law abiding citizens.

You people are bound and determined to re-elect Trump into office.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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?

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.."

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.

So now you want to limit our constitution to your ability to read the founding father's minds? Do you use a crystal ball for that? I prefer to just go by what is written, because I don't have your amazing ability to read the minds of a bunch of dead guys.

We don't have to try and read their minds, they wrote their thoughts down for us to see what they were thinking at the time

 

[Lakhota]

Guns / Healthcare / Climate

 

[toobfreak]

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

Fuck her and you. Let her try. Firearms are a constitutionally-protected right. Walls are not. Nancy would risk civil war over not stopping illegal immigration, the first, highest responsibility of the federal government, to DEFEND OUR BORDERS?

Clearly, these illegal Mexicans mean a lot more to her than do US citizens. What's your interest in them, Nancy? You're looking more and more like a TRAITOR to the American people.

 

[ThisIsMe]

'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 .

Exactly which line in the constitution says that?

It's not in the constitution, but it is in other documents that talk about what they were thinking when they wrote the 2A.

Those other documents are not the constitution, and have no legal authority over anything. Any document I might write would have just as much legal authority.

No, but those other documents give insight as to what they were thinking when they wrote the constitution. Unless, of course you prefer to go with the strictest method, and use verbatim face value, in which, yes, all gun laws are illegal, and citizens should be armed as well as the government, because that's literally what the document says.

 

[BULLDOG]

I would want to use reasonable means to reduce the crime. Not build some stupid wall that will serve no purpose other than to fulfill that idiot's campaign promise.

It does serve a purpose because everywhere in the world they've been used (including the US) they've been very successful.

The only purpose that medieval solution to an almost nonexistent 21st century problem could serve is to prevent your orange buffoon from being shown to be a fool yet again. Did you forget he said Mexico would pay for it?

That's a leftist hangup, not ours. We don't get brainwashed by our politicians and media like you on the left do. Do you know why they taught you to bring up who's paying for it? Because you have no argument against the wall because barriers work.

Where do Border Fences work? Everywhere

Mexico paying for it was his main campaign point. A medieval wall won't work.

No, it was not his main campaign point. His main campaign point was that a wall will be built. Nobody cares how it's paid for. Again, you've been brainwashed by the left because you can't support your argument that the wall is not needed.

Liar.

 

[ThisIsMe]

'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?

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.."

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.

So now you want to limit our constitution to your ability to read the founding father's minds? Do you use a crystal ball for that? I prefer to just go by what is written, because I don't have your amazing ability to read the minds of a bunch of dead guys.

That's what we have a United States Supreme Court for.

I agree. Any writings, other than the constitution, are immaterial.

Then the gun debate is unwinnable, because without context, it's just one person's interpretation vs anothers.

 

[BS Filter]

Guns / Healthcare / Climate

Remember when Obungo gave everyone a choice on Obamacare? Me neither. Enjoy your wall.

 

[BULLDOG]

Pipe Dream. Something happens when a Judge becomes a Supreme Court Justice. They change. Even Kavanah is showing change. Presidents all wish that they could control the Supreme Court but none have ever been able to do so no matter what party affiliation appoints them. Supreme Court Justices seem to strip themselves of any party affiliation. So go ahead and dream on. It's never happened before.

It's happened several times.

Court orders Chicago to pay NRA’s legal fees

Perhaps Trump's choices will turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. Wouldn't be the first American institution he tried to bastardize for his own personal gain.

Oh, you mean like Ears did with the IRS and FBI?

Right wing rhetoric and fact aren't the same thing.

Facts like what, that the FBI didn't tell the court their research was paid for by the DNC and Hillary? The fact that the FBI got a surveillance warrant to spy on a political foe? The fact that Comey told Lynch not to charge Hillary? Is NPR fact enough for you?

IRS Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups

The FBI and IRS aren't the same.

 

[Sactowndog]

Just love the Republicans talking about violating the constitution when Trump moving money to fund his priorities not funded by Congress is a direct violation of Article 1 of said constitution.

Hard to tell if these guys are hypocrites or just stupid. Perhaps both. If rational Republican talk show hosts like Tom Sullivan are calling you all hypocrites.......