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

[Ray From Cleveland]

God bless Nancy Pelosi!

Trump's going to take her joke of a victory and shove it up her wrinkled old crack and get his wall anyway

You mean by stealing money from the troops?

Where is Trump getting border wall money? From funds intended for military family housing upgrades

Our United States military for the most part would understand and be willing to sacrifice for this country as they always have.

 

[froggy]

God bless Nancy Pelosi!

Trump's going to take her joke of a victory and shove it up her wrinkled old crack and get his wall anyway

You mean by stealing money from the troops?

Where is Trump getting border wall money? From funds intended for military family housing upgrades

Blame it on the Democrats it's their fault

Why not blame Mexico for not paying for Trump's fantasy wall - like he PROMISED hundreds of times?

Before it's all over with they'll pay something

 

[froggy]

God bless Nancy Pelosi!

Trump's going to take her joke of a victory and shove it up her wrinkled old crack and get his wall anyway

You mean by stealing money from the troops?

Where is Trump getting border wall money? From funds intended for military family housing upgrades

Our United States military for the most part would understand and be willing to sacrifice for this country as they always have.

That's because they're not like the Democrats they are all American

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

God bless Nancy Pelosi!

God bless? Satan won this battle, but not the war.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

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.

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.

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.

Declaring an emergency has nothing to do with passing legislation. It's ignoring legislation.

What legislation is it ignoring?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Declaring a national emergency allows ignoring our laws. If Trump could legally shift money that is designated for other things, he would do it. There would be no need to declare a national emergency.

You have it ass backwards. Trump has to declare an emergency to do just that. Without an emergency, correct, he couldn't shift the funds without consent of Congress. Now if a court rules that Trump cannot do that, they are the ones ignoring our laws since the 1970's, and Commie courts will likely delay all they can until it gets to the Supreme.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

It's already been to Federal Court where it was ruled that the government (state) can limit the number of rounds in a mag within reason. Obviously less than 5 would be outside a reasonable amount. But 10 through 20 is within the legal definition of legal. It's been tried to get it to the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has refused to hear it and the lower Federal Court Rulings have stood. The Supreme Court avoids 2nd amendment rulings like the black plague because it's not their job. It's the lower courts and the States. The only reason Heller V DC was heard and ruled on was that DC has no State Government and it's up to the US Federal Government to operate like a state government. And Heller V wasn't nearly as far reaching as many in here believe it was. It just made it so that we have the right to have traditional handguns in our homes for home defense but the State or Local Government can regulate that part as long as they do it fairly.

So if you are waiting for the Supreme Court to change state laws, you have a long wait. The Supreme Court can only rule on existing laws, they cannot write new ones.

What the Supreme Court does is rule whether any laws that are challenged violate the rights of the American people. That's all they do. They can hear any case they like, but as you know, the court is changing under Trump and more changes may be coming up. So it's a new ballgame here.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The Demonrat Party is making it unlikely that they'll ever win the White House again

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Demonrat Party is making it unlikely that they'll ever win the White House again

I hate to disagree with your comment, but Trump lost a lot of support today by signing that bill. Now things look shaky if you ask me. I wouldn't doubt that after today, people start talking about forming a new conservative party and leaving the GOP. It's that serious.

 

[froggy]

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.

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.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

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.

Why can't we chain the Democrats to those fences

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The Demonrat Party is making it unlikely that they'll ever win the White House again

I hate to disagree with your comment, but Trump lost a lot of support today by signing that bill. Now things look shaky if you ask me. I wouldn't doubt that after today, people start talking about forming a new conservative party and leaving the GOP. It's that serious.

Trump is not GOP or Democrat. He is independent. It would be foolish if people don't see where the problem lies. I become more disillusioned with Democrats every day.

We'll see how this develops over the next 2 years.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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.

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.

Declaring an emergency has nothing to do with passing legislation. It's ignoring legislation.

What legislation is it ignoring?

The legislation that allotted that money for other things.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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

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

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

'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.

No they are not. As long as they don't violate the Constitution.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

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.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

Declaring an emergency has nothing to do with passing legislation. It's ignoring legislation.

What legislation is it ignoring?

The legislation that allotted that money for other things.

That is not ignoring legislation. If the Congress passes X billions for homeland security, they do not itemize what it's to be used for in most cases. They leave that up to the bureaucracies which is under control of the President. Same holds true of military spending.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

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?

 

[BULLDOG]

Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

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.