Post by: bearpaw on February 25, 2019, 09:55:21 PM
Pelosi Claims Future President Could Use “National Emergency” to Target Guns
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190222/pelosi-claims-future-president-could-use-national-emergency-to-target-guns
Post by: KFhunter on February 25, 2019, 10:00:43 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 26, 2019, 05:05:16 AM
Post by: Odell on February 26, 2019, 05:59:22 AM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on February 26, 2019, 06:55:32 AM
Post by: bradslam on February 26, 2019, 07:02:15 AM
She's not wrong that this trend has consequences. Presidents have been expanding the power of the executive office for too long. What can be done this way can be undone by the next president. I have no problem with a wall, but declaring a national emergency because you can't get congress to do what you want is a terrible way to govern.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 26, 2019, 07:14:52 AM
She's not wrong that this trend has consequences. Presidents have been expanding the power of the executive office for too long. What can be done this way can be undone by the next president. I have no problem with a wall, but declaring a national emergency because you can't get congress to do what you want is a terrible way to govern.Exactly- Obama abused the power through Executive Order and started a trend that needs to stop. The border needs some attention, but clearly it is not a national emergency.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2019, 07:29:26 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 07:55:13 AM
:bash:
Pelosi Claims Future President Could Use “National Emergency” to Target Guns
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190222/pelosi-claims-future-president-could-use-national-emergency-to-target-guns
So much for the were not trying to take your guns lies.
Post by: RJW on February 26, 2019, 08:21:11 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 26, 2019, 08:21:53 AM
I've heard/read several pieces with claims from lots of medical personnel and law enforcement about fentanyl and opiods being a national medical emergency. Those things are primarily coming from Mexico. Supposedly even the cartels are concerned and are sending lots of cheaper meth now, in part because so many of their customers are dying from the fentanyl.She's not wrong that this trend has consequences. Presidents have been expanding the power of the executive office for too long. What can be done this way can be undone by the next president. I have no problem with a wall, but declaring a national emergency because you can't get congress to do what you want is a terrible way to govern.Exactly- Obama abused the power through Executive Order and started a trend that needs to stop. The border needs some attention, but clearly it is not a national emergency.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 08:35:24 AM
She's not wrong that this trend has consequences. Presidents have been expanding the power of the executive office for too long. What can be done this way can be undone by the next president. I have no problem with a wall, but declaring a national emergency because you can't get congress to do what you want is a terrible way to govern.Exactly- Obama abused the power through Executive Order and started a trend that needs to stop. The border needs some attention, but clearly it is not a national emergency.
Don't fall for this manipulation. The CRS report laid out existing statutory authority, both to declare a national emergency, and to fund wall construction from existing sources, where anti-cartel measures are one such program.
Read it.
I have not seen particular reports of how Trump is in violation of congressionally granted authority, just this slippery slope appeal to emotions. If there is such a report, please point it out.
Here is that CRS report, which has been updated since the President invoked the National Emergencies Act.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/LSB10242.pdf
In it, it does indeed identify that there may be several legal challenges that a court could rule upon, given that it is relatively unprecedented for Congress to push back on such declared national emergencies.
It also describes the current process that the House is undertaking to terminate the declared National Emergency. "Congress enacts a joint resolution terminating the emergency (which would likely require the votes of two - thirds majorities in each house of Congress to override a presidential veto)."
So rather than succumb to fear mongering that a Dem president could rescind the 2A, something that even Lincoln had not undertaken in the Civil War (as far as I could research), the proponents of regular order and limited Executive power should be promoting the House's efforts to terminate the National Emergency as provided in the National Emergency Act.
At least stop pretending that this is all VERY unprecedented and a dangerous usurpation of congressional authority.
Quote
Although the original NEA authorized termination through a concurrent resolution, which does not require the President’s signature, Congress amended the provision in 1985 to require a joint resolution as a response to a 1983 Supreme Court decision holding that legislative vetoes were unconstitutional. While the NEA directs each house of Congress to meet every six months to consider whether to terminate a national emergency by joint resolution, Congress has never met to consider such a vote.
Although the NEA was intended to end perpetual states of emergency, it authorizes the President to renew an emergency declaration to avoid the Act’s automatic termination provision. Today, 31 national emergencies declared pursuant to the NEA are in effect, with Presidents having renewed certain emergencies for decades.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 08:38:06 AM
I've heard/read several pieces with claims from lots of medical personnel and law enforcement about fentanyl and opiods being a national medical emergency. Those things are primarily coming from Mexico. Supposedly even the cartels are concerned and are sending lots of cheaper meth now, in part because so many of their customers are dying from the fentanyl.
There was some recent report of opiods overtaking automobiles as a leading cause of deaths of Americans. And surprise, "gun violence," or however the gun control advocates want to misleadingly characterize deaths by firearm (include suicide, etc.), is a relatively minor blip compared to the two, last I checked.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 11:34:04 AM
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/02/previously-deported-illegal-alien-charged-in-florida-hit-and-run-that-killed-unborn-child/
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2019, 12:17:21 PM
She's not wrong that this trend has consequences. Presidents have been expanding the power of the executive office for too long. What can be done this way can be undone by the next president. I have no problem with a wall, but declaring a national emergency because you can't get congress to do what you want is a terrible way to govern.
:yeah: I think the emergency declaration was a big mistake and opens up the field on this issue to whatever a President wants to pass but is blocked by the legislature. This was not the intent in giving the President the power to use emergency powers.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 12:19:46 PM
Quote
Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard, is back from a two-week deployment flying surveillance missions over the Arizona border, and the experience shored up his support for President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.
“I went down there kind of undecided,” Kinzinger said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday.
“I think if this was just an issue of immigration it wouldn’t constitute a national emergency, but what I saw was really disturbing,” he said, adding that he would not vote to try to block the president’s national emergency declaration.
Some lawmakers have called the president’s move unconstitutional, as it bypasses Congress’ power of the purse. Kinzinger, though, does not agree with that assessment.
“Look, I wish this would have happened a different way,” he said. “I voted for comprehensive immigration reform. I think Republicans, the Democrat, both have good ideas on immigration.”
Kinzinger, who pilots the RC-26 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, said he tackled the mission from an apolitical point of view when he traded his flag pin for his flight cap.
Kinzinger said he flew missions in which he helped interdict 70 pounds of methamphetamines on a border crosser, as well as helped identify a woman who had been abandoned in the desert by human traffickers, also known as “coyotes.”
“Had she actually not been found by us, I don’t know if she’d been able to find her way home,” he said. “So yeah, she got picked up by Border Patrol, she’s going to be deported, but that was a way better option than being one of the 200, at least, bodies they end up finding in the desert every year.”
This was Kinzinger’s first time flying missions out of Arizona, but he said this was his fourth time flying on the southern border.
“Texas by the way, I was there under President Obama,” he added. “So the Guard’s mission on the border is nothing new.”
During the interview, Kinzinger acknowledged that border apprehensions are near a 50-year low, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data sheets. He also recognized that some border state governors have pushed back against the need for active-duty deployments.
However, he added that those numbers may be skewed by the inability of Border Patrol agents to catch illegal crossers.
“From my experience there were many, many groups that we would see on technology with camera radar or something like that that we could not go address because there were not enough Border Patrol agents,” Kinzinger said.
https://www.weaselzippers.us/412028-congressman-an-officer-back-from-an-air-guard-mission-on-the-border-now-backs-trumps-emergency-declaration/
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 12:26:13 PM
Quote
During the interview, Kinzinger acknowledged that border apprehensions are near a 50-year low, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data sheets. He also recognized that some border state governors have pushed back against the need for active-duty deployments.
However, he added that those numbers may be skewed by the inability of Border Patrol agents to catch illegal crossers.
“From my experience there were many, many groups that we would see on technology with camera radar or something like that that we could not go address because there were not enough Border Patrol agents,” Kinzinger said.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2019, 12:29:28 PM
QuoteIllinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard, is back from a two-week deployment flying surveillance missions over the Arizona border, and the experience shored up his support for President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration.
“I went down there kind of undecided,” Kinzinger said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday.
“I think if this was just an issue of immigration it wouldn’t constitute a national emergency, but what I saw was really disturbing,” he said, adding that he would not vote to try to block the president’s national emergency declaration.
Some lawmakers have called the president’s move unconstitutional, as it bypasses Congress’ power of the purse. Kinzinger, though, does not agree with that assessment.
“Look, I wish this would have happened a different way,” he said. “I voted for comprehensive immigration reform. I think Republicans, the Democrat, both have good ideas on immigration.”
Kinzinger, who pilots the RC-26 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, said he tackled the mission from an apolitical point of view when he traded his flag pin for his flight cap.
Kinzinger said he flew missions in which he helped interdict 70 pounds of methamphetamines on a border crosser, as well as helped identify a woman who had been abandoned in the desert by human traffickers, also known as “coyotes.”
“Had she actually not been found by us, I don’t know if she’d been able to find her way home,” he said. “So yeah, she got picked up by Border Patrol, she’s going to be deported, but that was a way better option than being one of the 200, at least, bodies they end up finding in the desert every year.”
This was Kinzinger’s first time flying missions out of Arizona, but he said this was his fourth time flying on the southern border.
“Texas by the way, I was there under President Obama,” he added. “So the Guard’s mission on the border is nothing new.”
During the interview, Kinzinger acknowledged that border apprehensions are near a 50-year low, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data sheets. He also recognized that some border state governors have pushed back against the need for active-duty deployments.
However, he added that those numbers may be skewed by the inability of Border Patrol agents to catch illegal crossers.
“From my experience there were many, many groups that we would see on technology with camera radar or something like that that we could not go address because there were not enough Border Patrol agents,” Kinzinger said.
https://www.weaselzippers.us/412028-congressman-an-officer-back-from-an-air-guard-mission-on-the-border-now-backs-trumps-emergency-declaration/
Then the correct method of accomplishing the end is to bring this evidence to Congress and convince them to vote in the funds. The executive branch isn't supposed to approve the allocation of taxpayer dollars and the Founders never intended to give him that power. The Congress passes the budget and the Executive branch executes it as a law of the land. If the executive branch is unable to convince Congress of the import of such funds, then the expenditure is superfluous. If we're dissatisfied and want a Congress to vote for such funds, we elect new representatives. We are a Constitutional republic, not a monarchy with one person deciding what he wants to spend and how we're going to pay for it. This is indeed a dangerous precedent.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 01:08:11 PM
Of course, such would have to withstand a presidential veto.
You and I both know that Congress, specifically, the Ds, refuse to appropriate the money necessary for border security including a wall.
I don't buy for a second that this is somehow a dangerous precedent. Read the CRS report. Never once has Congress exercised its power and voted to terminate a National Emergency, and some have been an "emergency" for decades.
If the POTUS is exercising legitimately granted executive authority, granted to him or prior presidents by Congress - which appears to be the case, unless and until it is shown to be otherwise - how is it a dangerous precedent to exercise such authority?
What is, however, a dangerous precedent is a Congress holding political considerations above national security interests of America and Americans.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2019, 01:16:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 01:24:34 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 01:26:08 PM
I wish that they had addressed it before the midterms, but it is hard to argue that Ryan would have supported spending on a wall, whereas the frequency of the illegal invader caravans has increased only recently.
Will dems use this same power and precedent that they already had to go after guns? Time will tell. But it will not be Trump's fault for using the same power and precedent to address the national security issue of border security and illegal immigration.
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 01:31:06 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2019, 01:38:44 PM
You got 70K + dead from opiods, and many more from illegal murders, drunk driving, etc. Gun deaths are around 40K, or excluding suicides, 15K. That's 2017 numbers. And the wet dream of banning all guns including those lawful uses by lawful citizens bears no relation to the ultimate desire, which is to repeal the 2A. Compare to a wall and the dangers of unchecked illegal immigration and open borders.
I wish that they had addressed it before the midterms, but it is hard to argue that Ryan would have supported spending on a wall, whereas the frequency of the illegal invader caravans has increased only recently.
Will dems use this same power and precedent that they already had to go after guns? Time will tell. But it will not be Trump's fault for using the same power and precedent to address the national security issue of border security and illegal immigration.
It was his main campaign promise. He should've dealt with it first. He didn't and it was a failure for him to neglect it.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 01:46:33 PM
You got 70K + dead from opiods, and many more from illegal murders, drunk driving, etc. Gun deaths are around 40K, or excluding suicides, 15K. That's 2017 numbers. And the wet dream of banning all guns including those lawful uses by lawful citizens bears no relation to the ultimate desire, which is to repeal the 2A. Compare to a wall and the dangers of unchecked illegal immigration and open borders.
I wish that they had addressed it before the midterms, but it is hard to argue that Ryan would have supported spending on a wall, whereas the frequency of the illegal invader caravans has increased only recently.
Will dems use this same power and precedent that they already had to go after guns? Time will tell. But it will not be Trump's fault for using the same power and precedent to address the national security issue of border security and illegal immigration.
It was his main campaign promise. He should've dealt with it first. He didn't and it was a failure for him to neglect it.
Perhaps. But that does not make it an unprecedented move to secure the border as a national security emergency measure heralding the demise of the 2A.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 26, 2019, 01:49:21 PM
Post by: Odell on February 26, 2019, 01:55:04 PM
You might like it now if you like the wall. I promise you will hate it later.
Post by: Special T on February 26, 2019, 02:06:08 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 02:07:29 PM
Look, I support no one blindly. I'm not a zombie and I'm, not a supporter no matter what. When my President does something wrong, I call him out. He screwed the pooch on this.
I was probably the first one to note that Trump is an imperfect human and will make mistakes. Don't confuse rational argument in support of a policy choice as blind zombie following.
The point was made that this is unprecedented. It is hardly so. That there are unique questions is unsurprising as every "national emergency" is different, else no new declaration would be necessary. The point was made that it will bring about the doom of the 2A at the whims of a dem president.
If dems are serious about this, they control the house, they can attempt to terminate the National Emergency per the National Emergency Act, or they can seek to work with opposition as you note and reign in future dem and rep presidential authority under the National Emergency Act. I won't hold my breath for the latter.
This is much ado about nothing and dems carping after they failed to prevent the POTUS from attempting to deliver on a campaign promise, as you also note.
Let's not let them blithely rewrite history and paint the situation as something that it is not. That's all I am saying. In recognition of actual statutory authority and presidential precedent, their argument reduces to they wish he wouldn't do what they are considering doing in terms of the 2A.
That they would consider taking action on the 2A is an admission against interests and it would matter not if Trump built the wall pursuant to a National Emergency Act National Emergency declaration or not. Let them. They sow the wind, let them reap the whirlwind.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 02:08:28 PM
31 Existing National Emergencies
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-31-national-emergencies-effect-years/story?id=60294693
Including:
Quote
October 21, 1995: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia was declared after increased reports of drug cartels laundering money through American companies.
November 3, 1997: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Sudan implemented economic and trade sanctions.
June 26, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans imposed sanctions on those aiding Albanian insurgents in Macedonia.
Aug 17, 2001: The National Emergency With Respect to Export Control Regulations renewed presidential power to control exports in a national emergency since the Export Administration Act of 1979 lapsed.
March 6, 2003: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe was an effort to punish associates of Robert Mugabe.
June 16, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus was in response to charges of fraud in the Belarus presidential election.
Oct 27, 2006: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was in response to violence around the Congolese presidential election runoff.
Aug 1, 2007: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon was in response to a breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon.
July 25, 2011: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Transnational Criminals was in response to the rise in crime by specific organizations: Los Zetas (Mexico), The Brothers’ Circle (former Soviet Union countries), the Yakuza (Japan), and the Camorra (Italy).
May 16, 2012: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen addressed political unrest within the Yemen government.
April 3, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan was in response to the ongoing civil war.
May 12, 2014: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic was in response to violence towards humanitarian aid workers.
Nov 23, 2015: The National Emergency With Respect to Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi was declared after a failed coup.
Post by: bigtex on February 26, 2019, 03:18:16 PM
Well, Harry Reid didn't think that ending the filibuster for SCOTUS candidates would be an issue either. My personal opinion is that Trump has been sitting on his ass on this for two years and all of a sudden, it's an emergency. He'd have gotten the funding a year ago or the year before. But he didn't. He and the Republicans blew this and now they're going to set a precedent that's going to come back and bite us lowly citizens when the Ds have their ax to grind on guns.:yeah:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 04:07:11 PM
Post by: rainshadow1 on February 26, 2019, 04:16:01 PM
I agree, it lacked foresight, and might have been a "legacy" move for ego... but it may well get the job done. Score one more for the businessman vs the lawyers.
The future looks pretty sketchy on many fronts these days... this is just one of them. Murdering babies as they lie on the table next to their mothers... united socialist states of amerika… we have many things to address, or decide how to live alongside in the future. In the big picture this is minor, and a win for a guy wanting to be remembered. I get the feeling that's the thought process behind it.
Post by: bearpaw on February 26, 2019, 04:45:48 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 26, 2019, 04:59:29 PM
Quote
Monday’s vote marked the first time the House or Senate has tried to terminate a presidential declaration of a national emergency, using the provisions of the National Emergencies Act of 1976.
https://www.weaselzippers.us/412084-house-rejects-trump-emergency-declaration-setting-up-potential-veto-showdown/
Talk about unprecedented.
:chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 27, 2019, 06:42:04 AM
Maybe I'm wrong but didn't he try to congress to act? :dunno:
Yes, he waited two years for an unfriendly House and then asked them to act. :bash:
It's OK to call out our leaders on stuff they fail to do. I like a lot of what Trump's done. This? Not so much. It was his most repeated and important promise. He dropped the ball.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 27, 2019, 09:42:26 AM
How many CR's could Trump get through Congress without dem support or with dem obstructionism during the 2017-2018 fiscal years, when Republicans held the majority in both chambers?
0.0
The last CR battle, Rs put up a crapfest and skipped town leaving Trump holding the bag. Thanks, Ryan. He did get some wins out of if, such as a 3-4x normal allotment toward military spending.
But let's not pretend that Trump did not attempt to get wall funding when Rs held a majority in both chambers.
Quote
There are a few major things the Republicans can accomplish on their own without Democratic support, including dismantling many of the key elements of the Affordable Care Act using a byzantine budget process called reconciliation.
But Republicans will ultimately discover that it will be impossible for them to pass many other measures without Democratic support, because of the constant threat of a filibuster in the Senate that would require at least 60 votes to overcome.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/18/Congress-Gives-Trump-Chance-Recast-Federal-Budget
Quote
The White House previously signaled it was backing down from Trump’s demand for $5 billion in wall funding and aides had privately offered assurances that the president plans to sign the bill.
Trump on Thursday morning also signaled he was poised to accept a funding measure without wall funding, tweeting that “with so much talk about the Wall, people are losing sight of the great job being done on our Southern Border by Border Patrol, ICE and our great Military.”
But the president’s frustration appears to have built as conservative commentators like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham accused him of caving on his demands for $5 billion in wall money.
The scenario resembles the fight in March over a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending package.
Trump begrudgingly signed the measure just hours after threatening to veto it, and vowed to never again sign similar legislation.
"I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again,” Trump said during a press conference. “I'm not going to do it again. Nobody read it. It's only hours old. Some people don't even know what’s in it.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/422261-trump-vents-frustration-over-wall-funding-fueling-uncertainty-over
Quote
Trump signs the $1.3 trillion spending bill after threatening veto
March 23, 2018
. . .
On Friday, President Trump confirmed that he signed the omnibus spending bill. Hours before, Trump considered vetoing the bill, citing a lack of support for his DACA deal and proposed border wall funding. "I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again," he said during a press conference.
https://twitter.com/i/moments/977201282602749953
You wanted him to work through Congress. He tried. Twice. You faulted him for not holding fast on his pledge to shutdown the government this last CR. He did.
Now you fault him for not attempting to work with Congress during a time when he Rs had the majority, but still need Ds to support the agenda and $5B in border spending. This assumption that he didn't attempt it earlier is mistaken.
I blame Trump for not holding fast on the shutdown, during a time when it appears that the pain felt by Americans would have increased, the media would have sided with Ds, and the President's support would have, as a result, eroded. Is this an unreasonable assignment of blame? Probably.
I mostly blame him for the unreasonable assumption that Congress Rs and Ds would not put politics above national security and the welfare of Americans. Is this an unreasonable expectation to assume that Congress would put politics aside and work together to the benefit of Americans and national security? Apparently so.
During that time, he also worked with Congress to attempt to repeal obamacare, a show vote and a betrayal of Americans for McCain, and a monumental waste of time. He also helped deliver tax reform, which, by elimination of the obamacare penalty, may yet see the overturn of obamacare in the courts. There was also two SCOTUS confirmations, the least of which is the Kavanaugh show trial which consumed quite a bit of Congressional bandwidth. The point being is that there were only a few instances in which the wall funding came up, and he did in fact attempt to work with Congress, despite needing some D support to pass the CRs. That effort failed.
You can't expect him to work with Congress, fault him for not working with Congress, when he did, then fault him for using existing statutory authority when the Ds prove intransigent and uninterested in national security and American's welfare throughout the process (in the minority, in the majority, and in the courts). You can. But it should be based in reality and not in a rewritten version of history.
:tup:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on February 28, 2019, 01:35:49 AM
Quote
Don’t be surprised but Madame Speaker is being disingenuous. If Trump hadn’t declared a national emergency, it wouldn’t have reduced the likelihood of a future Democrat president declaring one for whatever he thought to be an emergency. As Barack Obama’s weaponizing of the IRS, the FBI, and other federal agencies demonstrated, power placed in Democrat hands is used whether doing so is in keeping with statesmanly tradition, is ethical, or is even legal. So, we can confidently predict, that like the sun rising tomorrow or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying something nutty, a Democrat president will do whatever it takes to advance the Democrat agenda. But will a presidential declaration of a national emergency (hereafter, PDNE) by a Dem prez work for the causes Lefties find delightful?
Pelosi explicitly mentioned increasing gun control using a PDNE. Extending and improving border barriers that already exist and destroying a fundamental right enumerated in the U.S. Constitution aren’t, however, the same thing. Such an effort would bring a quick trip to the Supreme Court, where it would be unlikely to prevail. Additionally, over 326 million firearms are in private hands and it will be difficult to gather them up. A 2014 effort in California to confiscate 21,249 guns owned by convicted felons and domestic violence offenders collected just 3,770 guns. The guns were registered so the collecting officers had the names of the owners, their addresses, and the number of weapons they owned. They spent nearly $10 million of a $25 million appropriation or about $2500 per gun and left 17,479 of the targeted weapons uncollected. Imagine a similar effort to collect all American guns. The cost would be enormous and we haven’t mentioned the costs of hunting down guns less readily found nor of imprisoning those who resisted confiscation nor of diverting law enforcement from their normal duties nor of the costs of crimes that would otherwise be prevented by those officers and gun owners lawfully using their guns. The needed police intrusion into millions of lives would be an incredible imposition on America. While anti-gun voices might protest that no guns would mean no gun deaths and that confiscation would thereby be justified, it’s hard to imagine a gun confiscation effort that would collect all guns and keep criminals from obtaining a firearm. At best, it would make guns a highly valuable black market item to smuggle into America or to make in an ordinary machine shop.
https://spectator.org/the-bogeyman-isnt-real/
Post by: RJW on February 28, 2019, 07:06:18 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 28, 2019, 07:59:46 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 28, 2019, 08:10:35 AM
So how many here are old enough to remember the Berlin wall? That one was ineffective and we will never have one here as well armed. I know he say walls work, but they don't. There are far more effective was to secure the wall these days using technology. What bothers me is that conservatives used to believe in fiscal responsibility, that seems to have gone by the wayside. I miss the Grand old party of the 70's and 80's.
I remember the Berlin wall and it was very effective. Escapes from E. Berlin were far from massive, certainly not anywhere near the scope of illegal entries by our southern border.. The few that succeeded were big news. The many that didn't were even bigger news. As far as our southern border is concerned, everywhere a wall has been built, illegal entry at that point has decreased by a significant and measurable amount - El Paso, San Diego - big successes. You may say "yeah, but they just go somewhere else to cross." That's why we need a completed border wall and enhanced security. Walls do work and every single member of Congress who has one around their property has one for a reason
Post by: SuperX on February 28, 2019, 08:21:55 AM
So how many here are old enough to remember the Berlin wall? That one was ineffective and we will never have one here as well armed. I know he say walls work, but they don't. There are far more effective was to secure the wall these days using technology. What bothers me is that conservatives used to believe in fiscal responsibility, that seems to have gone by the wayside. I miss the Grand old party of the 70's and 80's.
:yeah:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 28, 2019, 08:34:45 AM
So how many here are old enough to remember the Berlin wall? That one was ineffective and we will never have one here as well armed. I know he say walls work, but they don't. There are far more effective was to secure the wall these days using technology. What bothers me is that conservatives used to believe in fiscal responsibility, that seems to have gone by the wayside. I miss the Grand old party of the 70's and 80's.How many would've defected to the west if there wasn't a wall and all that accompanied it? All of Eastern Europe?
Post by: timberfaller on February 28, 2019, 09:27:08 AM
Ever since I've been able to VOTE the DSPA aka:DNC, they've been Anti-2A and now endorse murder of children born alive, HAVE been bringing anti-gun bills before the American people!!
Where have you been? Nancy is just being Nancy!!
YOU own a firearm, YOU vote for any "D" YOU ARE dumber then a box of rocks!!!
Post by: wolfbait on February 28, 2019, 01:41:54 PM
Don't know what all the uproar is!!!
Ever since I've been able to VOTE the DSPA aka:DNC, they've been Anti-2A and now endorse murder of children born alive, HAVE been bringing anti-gun bills before the American people!!
Where have you been? Nancy is just being Nancy!!
YOU own a firearm, YOU vote for any "D" YOU ARE dumber then a box of rocks!!!
:yeah:
Former Federal Prosecutor: America Is Growing Into A "Civil War" - "I Vote & I Buy Guns”
https://freedomoutpost.com/former-federal-prosecutor-america-is-growing-into-a-civil-war-i-vote-i-buy-guns/
Post by: Fl0und3rz on March 03, 2019, 09:30:39 PM
- Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Where, indeed.
Post by: Odell on March 10, 2019, 09:02:34 AM
"Where was their outrage over the violation of the constitution and the separation of powers in the last decade? Where was the concern about Congress’s Article I power to declare war when President Obama declared a national emergency in 2011 as part of his undeclared war in Libya? Where was the concern about Congress’s Article I power over immigration and naturalization when, in 2012, President Obama having failed to get legislation passed from Congress that he wanted, created a brand new immigration amnesty program out of thin air? Or when he again unilaterally expanded his unconstitutional, illegal program in 2014, just days after his party suffered massive losses at the polls?"
- Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
Where, indeed.
It was there, the media didn’t give it the coverage it deserved and Twitter wasn’t so prominent like it is today. Twitter drives a crazy amount of news
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: RJW on March 11, 2019, 07:54:09 AM