Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

So Pelosi, in her typical fashion, throwing a hissy fit over the news that President Trump is going to declare a national emergency to address the Southern border. Is now threatening that a future leftist President might use a declared national emergency to confiscate fire arms.

"Let's talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America," Pelosi said. "That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would.

Anyone paying attention can read between the lines here. And it should come as no surprise, the leftists want an oppressed and unarmed population to control. Gun confiscation would be necessary in order to implement their tyrannical socialist utopia.

They have been saying for years that gun confiscation is their goal, and now they are telling us how they plan to attempt to implement it.

"For the Children"....of course.

I'm almost looking forward to seeing them try.

Source

a reply to: watchitburn

Ummm. . . .


As a comparison, Pelosi needs something else.

Trump isn't violating a Constitutional right.

He's securing the border.

Who would be against that?

Is Pelosi saying that a leftist president would violate a Constitutional right?

a reply to: watchitburn

Difference is, guns are protected by the constitution.

Oh, and the constitution gives the control of the border....and declaring a national emergency...to the president.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yup, that's what it sounds like she's saying to me.

But surely the leftists wouldn't subvert the Constitution, I mean look how they stand up for free speach

That loony bird can declare whatever she wants.
Millions of Americans won't give a f*** what she says.


Pretty soon she will be replaced anyway.
Damn hypocrite.

If the Democrats ever declare a national emergency trying to take American's Constitutionally protected guns away then they will definitely create a national emergency for themselves. Besides, no one is going to capitulate to an unjust attempt to violate our rights.

a reply to: watchitburn

And just who would confiscate the guns? I figure about ninety percent of the police and military would ignore the order. So who would they get, gang bangers? #metoo? blm?

Good luck...

That will be a fast track to the 25th they wanted to invoke on Trump.

Constitutionally protected, vs a president exercising his rights... yea that will go over well.

While her example may be idiotic it doesn't mean her message is wrong. This sets a dangerous precedent for any future President.

I would think anyone opposed to a big Federal government would be against this move just out of principle.

Future presidents could choose to commit to national emergencies as a way to achieve whatever outcome they want, and try to spin this as a precedent.
However they’ll have to go to the next election with that on their shoulders. I’m guessing if a president tried to use a national emergency to change gun laws in America they’d get voted out at the next election and I reckon Pelosi realises that as well so her statements are smoke and mirrors and don’t add up to much.
Similarly, if enough people are genuinely opposed to Trump using a national emergency to fund his wall there’s a chance it could effect his re-election bid in 2020. That’s up to the people to decide as it should be. a reply to: watchitburn

originally posted by: Chance321
a reply to: watchitburn

And just who would confiscate the guns? I figure about ninety percent of the police and military would ignore the order. So who would they get, gang bangers? #metoo? blm?

The criminals would love this....gov disarms the gentle folk and they can lay pilage. I hope Pelosy's Secret Service protection team will be the first in line to trade their firearms for pepper spray.

Also building a wall was a part of Trumps election platform and so he’s got a genuine mandate. It’s true the whole funded Mexico part is astray but squabbling over 5 billion dollars doesn’t seem reasonable when he used the wall as policy during his election campaign.
I very much doubt any democrat will run on a platform of removing everyone’s guns as they probably wouldn’t get voted in which makes pelosi’s comments even more cynical.a reply to: watchitburn

I am for and against guns. For because civilians with gun can protect the homeland incase of a invasion or somethin, sort of like the movie Red Dawn. But I am against gangs and stupid people with short tempers that chose to shoot first instead of at least trying to talk it out.

I doubt any president would take guns but maybe they won't have to because maybe one day guns will be obsolete. When laser guns happen that is where they will say laser guns are like a rpg, military only. Though the trouble is making people bullet proof... I give it 200 years until we are gun free because we won't need them. Until then... duck

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
While her example may be idiotic it doesn't mean her message is wrong. This sets a dangerous precedent for any future President.

I would think anyone opposed to a big Federal government would be against this move just out of principle.

Jimmy Carter declared an emergency that is still in effect.
It concerns Iran.
Do you agree that Carter set the precedent?

a reply to: watchitburn

I think this kind of blather from Ms. Pelosi just reflects the kind of dingbat she has become, and that she probably really doesn't support the US Constitution anyway.

Oh well.

a reply to: theatreboy

You're using logic against an enemy devoid of even a hint of it. The Geneva Convention has rules against that...

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
While her example may be idiotic it doesn't mean her message is wrong. This sets a dangerous precedent for any future President.

I would think anyone opposed to a big Federal government would be against this move just out of principle.

See, that's disingenuous. When some of us rail against Big Government, we're talking about the feds overstepping from the very limited list of responsibilities the Constitution mandates them to perform. Defense against foreign enemies is one of the few duties the feds are Constitutionally mandated to address, which this action by Trump does. Wealth redistribution, infrastructure aside from National security, global aid, gun control, national health care... these are not enumerated federal responsibilities in the Constitution and have created federal government bloating and gas.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why are you opposed to border security?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: watchitburn

Ummm. . . .

Trump isn't violating a Constitutional right.

BINGO.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why are you opposed to border security?

You know the answer(s)

1) Trump wants it
2) It reduces Democrat voter fraud.