National Emergency Gun Control

[NyleRN]

Does anyone find it disturbing that an active member of our government threatens to shred the constitution?

Someone remind me what is the definition of "treason"?

Oh, wait, we don't have time to address that... we are busy weeding out all the really dangerous people who wore blackface...

This country is a joke anymore. No rule of law. Almost complete lawlessness. Those in Washington committing treason and making unconstitutional laws are skating and continuing to make millions on back room deals. But hey, gotta make sure we lock up those dealing mary jane and pills

 

[Robert Richardson]

Well... she's right.

He shouldn't have done this. I hope the other two branches slap him hard.

Spoken like a true Anti-Trumper.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Pretty sure if Dems did try the national emergency route and started outlawing or confiscating guns then that would be the match that lit the powder keg and it would be on like Donkey Kong.

Concord and Lexington all over again.

 

[MCgrease08]

Spoken like a true Anti-Trumper.

Or maybe spoken like someone who actually believes in the separation of powers who doesn't agree with the president, any president, ruling through executive order.

It was unacceptable when Obama did it, why should it be any different now?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Spoken like a true Anti-Trumper.

Holy **** this isn't an issue with "your guy" or "their guy", it's larger than him.

Spoken like someone who sees beyond this very minute.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Or maybe spoken like someone who actually believes in the separation of powers who doesn't agree with the president, any president, ruling through executive order.

It was unacceptable when Obama did it, why should it be any different now?

Guess it was ok when Obama bypassed congress.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Guess it was ok when Obama bypassed congress.

This is "whataboutism", it is not an effective argument to rationalize the "current guy" doing bad things.

 

[T.Lex]

Yes. Obama could've done this. Used his pen and his phone to take guns.

Every POTUS could use emergency powers to do anything they wanted.

Kinda makes one wonder why they haven't done it....

 

[Robert Richardson]

Democrats don't need precedents to do anything. They will do what they want and will get away with it.

 

[Robert Richardson]

This is "whataboutism", it is not an effective argument to rationalize the "current guy" doing bad things.

What bad things is the "current guy" doing?

 

[Punkinhead]

We'll see how the "It's OK when our side does it" crowd feels when a democrat president decides gun control, climate change, universal healthcare, or a host of other ideas are emergencies. "But Obama abused executive power too" isn't a very compelling argument either. It's bad when a president of either party does it.

 

[MCgrease08]

Guess it was ok when Obama bypassed congress.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion when I clearly said, "it was unacceptable when Obama did it ... "

Democrats don't need precedents to do anything. They will do what they want and will get away with it.

Sadly, I do think you're right about this.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What bad things is the "current guy" doing?

(couldn't help myself, funny gif)

But seriously, just this "national emergency" should be considered a bad thing. We already know it will be abused by the other side... why open the door for them to do it as retaliation? Your "emergencies", my "emergencies" and their "emergencies" are very different... and one person's "emergency" is another person's freedom.

 

[BigRed]

This central government is a clear and present danger to liberty. We are living in dangerous times.

 

[T.Lex]

Everybody remembers that Louis XVI was king of France at the time of the French Revolution. (Ok, maybe not everyone, but some people do.)

No one really remembers that the decisions that created the pressure that culminated in the revolution were made my many predecessors over a long period of time.

Trump's decisions are properly viewed in that context. Has every "national emergency" been an actual, real emergency? Has that definition been diluted over time?

If he goes through with this, that continued dilution will allow for a variety of scenarios to appear more of an "emergency" that needs dealt with by executive power.

 

[ghuns]

Every president in our lifetimes has sought to expand executive power. Testing and pushing the previous boundaries. And once they obtain some shiny new toy, they don't EVER give it back.

That's not meant to endorse Trump's plan, as with all expansion of executive power, I think it's a BAD idea.

But it's just a much the fault of Congress for rolling over and ceding powers specifically granted to them.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Just a couple of days ago it was said a HUGE 30,000 new caravan is forming and coming through the Colombian jungle and is on its way to the United States. Laura Ingraham speaks with the intelligence secretary of Guatemala to discuss a new migrant caravan.

Starts at @14:45.

(18:46) mentions the new caravan

The Ingraham Angle (HD)/2/13/19 Fox News Wednesday, February 13, 2019




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAvUi3EfqJw

If accurate, that alone seems like pretty good ground for declaring a national emergency. Heck, close the border completely if you have to. No more illegal immigration!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If accurate, that alone seems like pretty good ground for declaring a national emergency. Heck, close the border completely if you have to. No more illegal immigration!

That sounds more like an imminent issue... which can be responded to with a different sort of force. He sent people to guard the border once, he can do it again. Spending $8 billion to build something isn't a response to those 30k people.

 

[CampingJosh]

Spoken like a true Anti-Trumper.

I'm getting there, yeah. I think that he's just as scummy as the rest of the swamp he promised to clean up.

Trump has tried to govern as though he were king rather than president, and I am certainly anti that.

Guess it was ok when Obama bypassed congress.

Nope. But Obama isn't in power, so I am not worried about him anymore.

Democrats don't need precedents to do anything. They will do what they want and will get away with it.

That's a terrible reason to excuse the same behavior on your own side of the aisle.

If you stop your own party from abusing power, then you have credibility to stop the other side from doing the same thing. Right now neither side has credibility because both just want short-term political wins instead of doing the right thing.

What bad things is the "current guy" doing?

I will stick to just one for now: radically overstepping the bounds of the Constitution, attempting to grant himself both legislative and executive authority at the same time. Like I said, he's trying to act like a king.

It's bad when any president tries to do crap like this.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Not sure how you came to this conclusion when I clearly said, "it was unacceptable when Obama did it ... "



Sadly, I do think you're right about this.

Yes, you are correct, it was unacceptable but, with democrats , it was acceptable.