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

[LeftofLeft]

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

Good luck with that, Nan. Trump will have an easier job using National Emergency to build a Wall. What Democrats don’t see is that many of Trump’s actions and attitude when it comes to working with Congress mirror those of Obama’s.

Trump and Obama are very similar.

 

[easyt65]

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

Good luck with that, Nan. Trump will have an easier job using National Emergency to build a Wall. What Democrats don’t see is that many of Trump’s actions and attitude when it comes to working with Congress mirror those of Obama’s.

Trump and Obama are very similar.

I completely disagree. President Trump has given Congress every chance to author legislation. He has often pushed back on issues, right into the laps of Congress and demanded they do their job. Obama admittedly violated the Constitution, more than once, to push his own liberal agenda / issues into reality by by-passing Congress.

 

[pismoe]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

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

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?

------------------------------ Shall not be INFRINGED Seawitch .

 

[BULLDOG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

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

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

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

Cut out the legalistic BS.

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

Try to stay on subject bozo. Since you are reaching the end of your approved talking points, I expect a "but Obama"soon.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

All Gore? How quaint. How long you been asleep,Rip?

Try NASA.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

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

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?

------------------------------ Shall not be INFRINGED Seawitch .

Right, as part of a well regulated militia. Why'd those old farmers put that in there?

 

[easyt65]

Try to stay on subject bozo. Since you are reaching the end of your approved talking points, I expect a "but Obama"soon.

I am staying on topic, and common sense - not talking points - is all that is needed.

What do you liberal socialist snowflakes NOT understand about the words 'Right to bear arms....this right shall not be infringed'?

I am sure if the Founding Fathers had known there were going to be Americans so stupid as not to comprehend those few simple words they would have been happy to have drawn you some pictures to go along with it. Too bad they didn't.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

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

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

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

It is armament, and can reasonably be considered arms. Full auto access is severely limited. Doesn't fit the normal "guns for everybody" pattern.

 

[easyt65]

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?

------------------------------ Shall not be INFRINGED Seawitch .

Right, as part of a well regulated militia. Why'd those old farmers put that in there?

'Well-Regulated' - there are so many laws on the books today one could argue that it is un-necessarily 'over-regulated'.

 

[Lysistrata]

What is missing from all of this "debate" is just whom do these people who are in love with their guns, of all types and sizes and magazines, want to shoot.

My father had guns, at least one pistol, rifles, and I shot them. But he also taught me never to aim them at a living being except in dire circumstances.

Now we have 2nd Amendment crazies, pretending that evil people are invading us, coming in through our doors and windows! This is NOT actually occurring.

Just whom do these gun-crazies want to shoot?

So you've never read the 2nd Amendment?

Yes. What National Guard do you belong to? If you do not belong to our National Guard and stand ready to defend to defend our nation from some invasion, who are you and what do you want? I ask again: Who do you want to shoot? My father did not want to shoot anyone.You seem to want to do this. Do you like guns because you want to murder?

 

[easyt65]

It is armament, and can reasonably be considered arms. Full auto access is severely limited. Doesn't fit the normal "guns for everybody" pattern.

Why are we talking about 'Full Auto' when that is already ILLEGAL? As in 'well-regulated'.....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What is missing from all of this "debate" is just whom do these people who are in love with their guns, of all types and sizes and magazines, want to shoot.

My father had guns, at least one pistol, rifles, and I shot them. But he also taught me never to aim them at a living being except in dire circumstances.

Now we have 2nd Amendment crazies, pretending that evil people are invading us, coming in through our doors and windows! This is NOT actually occurring.

Just whom do these gun-crazies want to shoot?

So you've never read the 2nd Amendment?

Yes. What National Guard do you belong to? If you do not belong to our National Guard and stand ready to defend to defend our nation from some invasion, who are you and what do you want? I ask again: Who do you want to shoot? My father did not want to shoot anyone.You seem to want to do this. Do you like guns because you want to murder?

Maybe this'll help,but I doubt it.

 

[danielpalos]

The only "national emergency" that currently exists for Trump, is that he desperately needs to hold on to hls moronic base.

Otherwise, the "emergency" to build a wall would have been declared TWO years ago.

why is the right wing alleging patriotism to our Constitution, to an implied power not any express powers.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

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

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

----------------------------- 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 .

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

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

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

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

Exactly which line in the constitution says that?

 

[BULLDOG]

Try to stay on subject bozo. Since you are reaching the end of your approved talking points, I expect a "but Obama"soon.

I am staying on topic, and common sense - not talking points - is all that is needed.

What do you liberal socialist snowflakes NOT understand about the words 'Right to bear arms....this right shall not be infringed'?

I am sure if the Founding Fathers had known there were going to be Americans so stupid as not to comprehend those few simple words they would have been happy to have drawn you some pictures to go along with it. Too bad they didn't.

OK. Just to be clear, nuclear arms, yes or no?

 

[easyt65]

Yes. What National Guard do you belong to?

Was there a 'National Guard' when we won our independence?

Nope, just a bunch of farmers, shop keepers, etc... You think the Founding Fathers, if they could, would go back before we won our independence and pass a law stating unless you are a member of a formal organized govt-run and regulated militia you will have to give up your guns? REALLY?

Citizens having weapons is what made it possible for individual citizens to come together to form a militia in order to fight an oppressive government and to protect this country from an oppressive dictatorial government who sought to limit / deny our freedoms. THAT is, in part, why the Constitutional Right to bear arms was created.

Did you see any of the Venezuelan people rise up and fight the tyranny/oppression/socialist dictatorial regime that collapsed their nation, the richest country in South America at one point? No...of course not...because the government seized / stripped them of their weapons. Look at history, other nations who went down the same path - same trend. Disarm, oppress.

No thank you.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

------------------------------ Shall not be INFRINGED Seawitch .

Right, as part of a well regulated militia. Why'd those old farmers put that in there?

'Well-Regulated' - there are so many laws on the books today one could argue that it is un-necessarily 'over-regulated'.

80,000 people killed by guns in the last two years. Nope, not over regulated.

 

[Fang]

"We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the borer that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration system once and for all"... "In recent weeks we've seen a surge of unaccompanied children arrive at the border, brought here and to other countries by smugglers and traffickers."

- Barack Obama

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, but the #1 reason for coming is because people like Donald Trump for decades have offered them the promise of work. Lets not hide that and pretend people like Donald Trump is the #1 reason we have this emergency.

We are the people hurt by it, not Trump. He is offering a solution. Why does it matter that he caused it when he is offering a solution?