Will Democrats Declare A National Emergency to Get Rid of Guns?


#1

Thanks to King Trump declare a National Emergency on illegal immigration to get funding to build a wall, will Democrats declare a National Emergency on gun violence if there’s another shooting to ban all guns or enact more restrictive gun control laws if they reclaim the White House?


#2

I’m sure Trump supporters will be lining up to defend this.


#3

Left-wing talking points out in full force.


#4

They are obviously encouraged by Trump’s action, but they are forgetting that there is no Constitutional Right to illegally enter this country, whearas the right to own guns does have that protection. Liberals often get out in front of their headlights when it comes to the Constitution.


#5

They’re far more likely to go after health care or global warming.


#6

The next time there’s a mass shooting with a semi-auto rifle…national sales ban…rifles and ammo.


#7

Bingo. It’s the second amendment. Which means it’s pretty important. Not a chance that they can nullify the bill of rights by declaring a national emergency. I’m not worried.


#8

@Samm is likely right; it’ll be ruled as constitutional.

Liberals are more likely to use it on something like mandatory transgender sensitivity training , federal medicaid expansion or getting everyone who makes less than $70K a pony.


#11

Seizure of private weapons? Police kicking down doors and tossing everyone’s house to see if they’re storing one?


#13

There is no left aside funding big enough for most of the left’s policies.


#14

So tell me where in the constitution it allows for a president to alter the constitution with a phone and a pen?


#15

You’re missing the point.

The wall is to STOP illegal immigration.

A gun ban would be to STOP murder.

FYI: Murder is also illegal.


#16

Hmmmm a national emergency to defend our boarders (a constitutional guarantee you know defend from those within and outside the country) vs something that is not allowed in the constitution (shall NOT be infringed).

lets think about that for a moment shall we . . . .


#17

You mean the part of the Constitution that gives congress the power of the purse?


#18

You do realize it has been infringed again and again and again right?


#19

But…

A) There are tens of thousands of deaths in this country each year due to guns
B) We have needed more restrictions/bans for quite some time
C) Nothing would burn righties arses more than a suspension of the 2nd Amendment via National Emergency declaration


#20

you mean the law that gives the president the right to declare a national emergency and given limited powers in that regard?

When congress gives the president the power to do something, guess what, they are allowed BY LAW to do it. And what he is doing, re-allocated some generically funded money to a more specific thing (aka money to stop drugs from coming into the country toward a wall that will stop drugs (and other stuff) from coming into the country.)


#21

Sure- can you name me any time that massive amounts of money have been reallocated from other parts of the budget via a national emergency declaration?

Are you for this happening repeatedly in other circumstances that the president sees fit? Or are only Republican presidents allowed to act imperially?


#22

In ways it has, in others it hasn’t. An outright ban or severely limited the right would (or should) be ruled unconstitutional even by the 9th circus or Hawaii courts.


#23

Yeah agreed that radically curbing the 2nd would never pass muster in the courts. But a more limited infringement might.