National Emergency Gun Control

[Mikey1911]

Constitutionally, how is a law passed by Congress, surrendering their specific enumerated powers to the executive branch, even constitutional?

Not to be a Denny, but until some aggrieved party can convince at least five Justices to the contrary, any law passed by the Congress and not vetoed by the President is going to be assumed to be constitutional.

Right now I would find it terribly amusing if a Republican Senator were to introduce a bill repealing the Act under which Trump proclaimed the latest “National Emergency”.

Pelosi and Schumer might experience crainial detonation at the thought of losing a cudgel that they are now drooling to use should the Democrats regain the Presidency.

 

[KCYM7]

We all know politics is a tit-for-tat game. What the President is doing now is, in my opinion, bad for the country simply because 1) illegal immigration from Mexico has been steadily declining since 2007, and 2), having to declare a national "emergency" to get your pet project done is a sign of weakness. We're 12 years on since the Bush/Cheney years (neither of those conservative Republicans seemed to feel it was an emergency), and NOW it's suddenly an grave threat to national security???

I certainly agree that FDR was totally in the wrong about the internment camps. But the debacles at Ruby Ridge and Waco were more a failure of law enforcement bureaucracy than political leadership. Clinton wasn't directing either operation personally, just as I'm sure Trump didn't demand that immigrant children be put into cages.

 

[Ingomike]

Right now I would find it terribly amusing if a Republican Senator were to introduce a bill repealing the Act under which Trump proclaimed the latest “National Emergency”.

Pelosi and Schumer might experience crainial detonation at the thought of losing a cudgel that they are now drooling to use should the Democrats regain the Presidency.

This is what I have been proposing, make Dems pass it or explain to their base why they will not.

We all know politics is a tit-for-tat game. What the President is doing now is, in my opinion, bad for the country simply because 1) illegal immigration from Mexico has been steadily declining since 2007, and 2), having to declare a national "emergency" to get your pet project done is a sign of weakness. We're 12 years on since the Bush/Cheney years (neither of those conservative Republicans seemed to feel it was an emergency), and NOW it's suddenly an grave threat to national security???

I certainly agree that FDR was totally in the wrong about the internment camps. But the debacles at Ruby Ridge and Waco were more a failure of law enforcement bureaucracy than political leadership. Clinton wasn't directing either operation personally, just as I'm sure Trump didn't demand that immigrant children be put into cages.

It is such tired trope that previous RINO's, (Bush) were conservatives. Bush was a mega spender, who passed the biggest usurpation of citizens rights in our country's history, just mouthing the words does not make one conservative. DJT left the next Bush heir to the throne in the dust because conservatives were searching for something different. The immigration issue was a feature, not a bug for the Bushes. To be sure DJT is not a typical conservative, and is a big spender, but his record so far speaks for itself.

MM

 

[drawer86]

You do realize, don't you, that your natural right (see the first sentence in the DoI) to possess property is not dependent upon any gov't?
The only way anyone can steal your property, whether it is your wallet, your DVD player, or your life, or your gun, is through criminal behavior and we all know how to deal with criminals, right? FWIW, you don't always have to shoot criminals in the face multiple times. Sometimes they will not even bother you if they perceive you have nothing of value. That is why I got rid of all my property many years ago, especially the guns. Now I have nothing to steal.

 

[KLB]

Are they really RINOs if pretty much all Republicans qualify by a definition? Seems like that makes them tried and true Republicans.

Now if you want to call them CINOs (conservative in name only), you are probably correct.

 

[JeepHammer]

Nancy Pelosi is taking shots at Trump saying that the border is not a national emergency... but gun violence is. She states that this declaration sets a precedent that a later Democrat President could now use to institute gun-control and other Liberal policies, bypassing the legislature.

I believe if this was possible Obama would have done it, what say you?

The only firearms related issues President Obama delt with we actually gained 'Right'.
He allowed permitted carry on federal right of ways, like Amtrak, even through places like Chicago & New York City.
He allowed permitted carry in Federal Parks and on Federal held 'Public' lands.

Keep in mind this was direct action on the part of the President, Executive Order.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Are they really RINOs if pretty much all Republicans qualify by a definition? Seems like that makes them tried and true Republicans.

Now if you want to call them CINOs (conservative in name only), you are probably correct.

I dare say that with how often people are called RINOS, that actual Republicans don't actually exist, but rather, are mythological beings.

 

[indyartisan]

I dare say that with how often people are called RINOS, that actual Republicans don't actually exist, but rather, are mythological beings.

They are alive and well in here Hamilton County.
Always finding new private projects to spend public funds on and basically spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors.

 

[actaeon277]

They are alive and well in here Hamilton County.
Always finding new private projects to spend public funds on and basically spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors.

I object.
Drunken sailors only spend their own money.

 

[indyartisan]

I object.
Drunken sailors only spend their own money.

Objection sustained.
Please accept my apology

 

[actaeon277]

Objection sustained.
Please accept my apology

No biggie. I just happen to have a degree in being a drunk sailor.

 

[cbhausen]

I dare say that with how often people are called RINOS, that actual Republicans don't actually exist, but rather, are mythological beings.

what about Democrats In Name Only?

DINOs, of course. But they’re in endangered species if not extinct because Democrats stick together.

 

[Ingomike]

Are they really RINOs if pretty much all Republicans qualify by a definition? Seems like that makes them tried and true Republicans.

Now if you want to call them CINOs (conservative in name only), you are probably correct.

Well said...

MM

 

[wakproductions]

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.

I really don't think that scenario is going to play out Clive Bundy style so easily. If they actually do decide on gun confiscation, it won't be going door to door. They will be observing, waiting to arrest people when they are not able to fight back. They will hit them with SWAT teams out in public places - grocery store, eating lunch, the gym, traffic stop. They will arrest families. And they could come after gun owners they want one by one with an overwhelming amount of force. They won't start with the Fudd who's got a hunting rifle in his closet. They'll be going after the AR-15 aficionados who posted a pic of their collection on social media. It will happen under the guise of "red flag" laws that the people they are getting are dangerous to society - and the media will be all over that. Nobody will want to fight for the alleged white supermacist with 100 guns in his basement. It will start off that way and gradually chip away at more benign forms of gun ownership and transactions. We've seen how bad things could get in 8 years. A President Harris, O'Rourke, Booker, Bloomberg, etc... if they declare a state of emergency on day 1 by the end of a presidential term what's considered "normal" could be radically shifted.

If gun owners do fight back violently, the media will do all they can to show them as this dangerous militant collective that is harmful to civil society. Tough talk won't be so easy when a few armed civilians die standing up to the authorities. As we've seen from countless videos of body cam footage - the government can care less about who gets hurt in such a fiasco.

 

[ditcherman]

I really don't think that scenario is going to play out Clive Bundy style so easily. If they actually do decide on gun confiscation, it won't be going door to door. They will be observing, waiting to arrest people when they are not able to fight back. They will hit them with SWAT teams out in public places - grocery store, eating lunch, the gym, traffic stop. They will arrest families. And they could come after gun owners they want one by one with an overwhelming amount of force. They won't start with the Fudd who's got a hunting rifle in his closet. They'll be going after the AR-15 aficionados who posted a pic of their collection on social media. It will happen under the guise of "red flag" laws that the people they are getting are dangerous to society - and the media will be all over that. Nobody will want to fight for the alleged white supermacist with 100 guns in his basement. It will start off that way and gradually chip away at more benign forms of gun ownership and transactions. We've seen how bad things could get in 8 years. A President Harris, O'Rourke, Booker, Bloomberg, etc... if they declare a state of emergency on day 1 by the end of a presidential term what's considered "normal" could be radically shifted.

If gun owners do fight back violently, the media will do all they can to show them as this dangerous militant collective that is harmful to civil society. Tough talk won't be so easy when a few armed civilians die standing up to the authorities. As we've seen from countless videos of body cam footage - the government can care less about who gets hurt in such a fiasco.

^This! They are professionals as incrementalism. We are always just reacting, it seems. We are sometimes an all or nothing crowd, my way or the highway, and they are very patient, not letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

 

[ditcherman]

They are alive and well in here Hamilton County.
Always finding new private projects to spend public funds on and basically spending money like a bunch of drunken sailors.

I've said that for years, Hamilton Co is one of the most republican places on earth, but that doesn't make them conservative, they really love their permit money and control.

 

[jamil]

Invoking the r-word evokes a lot of self-righteous scorn from the woke.

 

[jamil]

This is what I have been proposing, make Dems pass it or explain to their base why they will not.



It is such tired trope that previous RINO's, (Bush) were conservatives. Bush was a mega spender, who passed the biggest usurpation of citizens rights in our country's history, just mouthing the words does not make one conservative. DJT left the next Bush heir to the throne in the dust because conservatives were searching for something different. The immigration issue was a feature, not a bug for the Bushes. To be sure DJT is not a typical conservative, and is a big spender, but his record so far speaks for itself.

MM

I would argure that the ardent trumpers supporting this action are not exercising their conservative values to justify it. Instead it is purely pragmatic. The end justifies the means. It’s not “conservative” to be selectively conservative, depending on who is issuing the order and whether you like the order.

 

[Ingomike]

I would argure that the ardent trumpers supporting this action are not exercising their conservative values to justify it. Instead it is purely pragmatic. The end justifies the means. It’s not “conservative” to be selectively conservative, depending on who is issuing the order and whether you like the order.

And I would argue that the outsider is using the insiders laws and ways, that most true conservatives believe unconstitutional, against them.

This fallacy that if one side is pure and did not do something, the other side will not think of it and use it is silly.

MM

 

[Route 45]

I would argure that the ardent trumpers supporting this action are not exercising their conservative values to justify it. Instead it is purely pragmatic. The end justifies the means. It’s not “conservative” to be selectively conservative, depending on who is issuing the order and whether you like the order.

What's wrong with being pragmatic? I don't need a label like "conservative" or "liberal" to tell me how to think.