Republicans should oppose Trump's power grab!!!!

No one is saying that anyone MUST use or have a Smart gun. Just why can't I even buy one if I want it.

New Jersey's law is silly, I give it about a week if it ever went into effect.

 

It's no different from a gun having a safety. Any gun can jam.

 

(Clip)

Nothing does, nor has, nor ever will: which I guess covers it in your mind.
Fine, go on enabling gangs to arm themselves . When sanity finally prevails this bushwa will be one more nail in the coffin of ALL gun ownership

(We'll get your little derringer TOO, my pretty)

 

Such devices do not run on batteries, or can be shorted out by contact with oil, however. That is the key difference.

What is missed on the part of yourself pertaining to the above exchange, however, is that the authority of the president of the united states to declare a state of emergency cannot authorize a significant infringement and/or violation on a clearly established constitutional right. Nor can that authority be used to authorize government mandating that the public purchase a commercial good that it simply does not want to own. Declaring a state of emergency simply does not work that way.

 

Democrats only control the House of Representatives, the Senate is under Republican majority.

 

Xenamnes is hitting it out of the park. I’m not a gun loss Nazi just wanted to make the point LE etc are irresponsible with weapons too.

 

Well, we should certainly work toward that goal. But, they are humans and sometimes work in extreme conditions.

I don't see this as some incredibly difficult requirement.

First, fingerprints are not the only mechanism.

Beyond that, let's say that the gun's ability to fire can be set at any time and that it will last for 36 hours before turning back off. (Separate from trigger locks).

So, every day or so you have to reup the id on your gun if you want it to be constantly able to fire just like guns with no ID mechanism.

That's still great by me, as it means that stolen or lost guns become inoperative within a day or so.

 

How is that relevant? You don't think there are GOP senators who would like to vote on a bill that takes away executive power? And how do you stand? Do you support repealing the act?

 

Which is useless without the house of representatives.

 

The last two years of McConnell prove he's interested in nothing but partisan power.

It's ridiculous to propose that he's going to stand for something other than that.

And, Republicans have not proven interested in standing up to Trump on ANY issue of import.

What the Senate COULD do could not possibly be more irrelevant.

 

Which is not an excuse for the stories reporting how law enforcement officers leave firearms unattended in public restrooms, have them stolen from unlocked patrol vehicles, or just plain cannot account for their whereabouts.

What are the other mechanisms that would qualify a firearm as constituting as being "smart" in this particular regard?

Such a concept could only be implemented through the inclusion of microchip technology, in a physical construct that is well known for becoming quite dirty through normal operation. Burnt powder residue, cleaning solvents, oils and greases, and countless other contaminants, all posing a disabling risk to the technology and rendering the firearm useless to the intended operator simply through normal everyday usage.

Such does not even begin to address whether or not already existing firearms could be retrofitted with such undeveloped technology, or how a declared national emergency could be utilized to go about compelling the public to make use of such technology.

 

I don't think health care for all can be deemed a national emergency. Lack of border security is. Congress opposed it due to partisan reasons and what they did to block the president costed more than the money Trump asked for.

You didn't seem to care when the house have the finger to the entire country.

 

I don't see a point in dumping on law enforcement officers here. They are not a noticeable source of guns used in crime.

I'm no expert on this. I would suggest it could include swipes, a key code, a physical key, a proximity key, or ?? All could include a timeout function to prevent use after some amount of time.

Yes, it would have to be hardened better than simply water proof.

Yes, I think most solutions along this line would have their effect only after existing guns start timing out or as people start preferring them for various reasons - such as better home safety, or whatever.

There are lots of things we do as a nation that have an effect over some reasonably significant period of years. Fixing pollution problems takes significant time. Retirement programs take many years. Infrastructure investments take numerous years.

If we could make a difference over a couple decades, that would be worth talking about.


Today, we're not even willing to allow the topic to be studied by our standard institutions for studying national problems!!

 

You apparently didn't know that Congress controls the purse strings. Congress controls appropriations, not the executive branch. Most people have learned that by the sixth grade.

Congress denied funding for Trump's border wall. They provided $3.75B for border security but not a dime for Trump's wall. So, Trump declared an imaginary national emergency and wants to get the funds from sources Congress has appropriated for another purpose. In so doing, Trump is going around Congress and challenging the Separation of Powers principle in our Constitution.

Have you heard of the Separation of Powers principle? Most people have learned that by the sixth grade, too.

"The precedent meme only serves to show how uninformed and out of touch liberal progressives are."

That was funny. Most people have learned the meaning of precedent by the fourth grade.

 

Building a wall is not a national emergency. You are missing the point. If a President can declare a national emergency when he isn't getting his way and he is successful, that sets a precedent. Future Presidents, including liberal Presidents, can do the same.

This is a concept that Trump and his supporters do not understand. They think only of today. They can't think of the consequences of Trump's actions tomorrow.

 

People who like to exploit illegal immigrants coming and going unchecked and unregulated and aid and abet them aren't expected to consider illegal immigration a problem. The Democrats are in bed with illegal immigration and the cartels who run them.

It's a national emergency for Americans who live in America and don't want it over run and taken over by foreign nationals.

We fully expect democrats to try a national emergency to gun grab or to impose insane regulations on the American people to cripple America to further its destruction.

Every Democrat candidate needs to be asked whether they would consider a national emergency to gun grab or what measures they would take to To stop global warming.

 

well yes it is. In South America you have organizations creating caravans of thousands of people that storm the border and you have the enemy within that reports it falsely. That is a threat to national security.

You are missing the point. If a President can declare a national emergency when he isn't getting his way and he is successful, that sets a precedent. Future Presidents, including liberal Presidents, can do the same. [/QUOTE] president can declare national emergency. And he's doing so for a threat to national security.

Do you can say a thousand times that controlling the border is not part of national security but you are wrong.

Barack Obama was able to declare national emergency under the same grounds so was George Bush and Bill Clinton Bush before him and Ronald Reagan. So the precedent what's set long before Trump even thought about running for office.

The president was trying to go about it the conventional way but the House of Representatives decided to obstruct him. I would hope that a Democrat if there was a threat to our nation and there was a necessity to fund something that could at least partially contain the threat that they would override Congress to do it. Especially if Congress is just being petty stupid *******s. blowing the more money than the president asked for to try and stop him from being re-elected. I don't care whether you're Democrat or Republican.

pushing social crap with this won't fly because that's not going to be a threat to national security.

A porous border with orchestrated efforts to invade in South America is a threat to national security. If it's not the Supreme Court will stop him.

The president is able to declare a national emergency.

 

How does it work? How does the President determine that something is an emergency?

 

I think foreign nationals violating our border could be considered a national emergency .

 

lol. Look up "emergency".

We have seen reductions in crossings and have sustained periods in the past of FAR higher numbers crossing.

The number of undocumented aliens in America has not been rising for a decade.

There is no way to spin that into being emergent.

 

I don't get why democrats are so determined to allow foreign nationals to come and go unchecked and unregulated across our border. It's like they serve the cartels.

Our nation's border being violated at will by bad guys is an emergency. Just because you agree with the crime and like the criminal doesn't make what they do OK.

 

OK, you should read the bipartisan immigration reform bill that was created in the House and Senate in 2013. It included $40B for border enhancement, changes to our visa system (which is how HALF come here and stay), money to fix e-verify, requirement that all employers use e-verify under penalties and with money for policing.

The recession of 2008 demonstrated that when jobs dry up in the US, people don't come across the border illegally. In fact, many who were not yest established here actually left.

That bill passed the Senate 68-32 as I remember. It would have passed the House had Republican Speaker Boehner not refused to allow it to come to a vote. It was backed by Senator Rubio who was part of the committee that created it.

What Trump is saying about the border is almost entirely false. More wall is NOT a crime fighting venture. The people crossing are not "bad people" - they are mostly desperate for work and freedom from the criminal dictatorships and drug cartels.

Drug traffic across that border is THROUGH the checkpoints, NOT by humans carrying it. FAR too much is coming in to make carrying it across the desert an option. Our own border services state that. El Chapo stated that. There is NO evidence of what Trump is claiming.

Also, let's remember that the 911 terrorists came here LEGALLY. And, other terrorists have been home grown here. There is no anti-terrorist benefit.

Trump's claims about crime in El Paso are absolutely false as stated by officials there.

This is NOT an emergency. And, there ARE good solutions to the problems we face there - they just don't include billions of tax dollars thrown against the wall.

 

Sounds like there is a problem on the border and you just want to deny it exist. Congress obviously thinks there's a problem there because they are allocating money. Just because democrats want to exploit illegal immigrants does not make the illegal immigration OK.

 

There is no emergency on the border.

Remember that this is supposed to be an emergency.

And, no, it is corporations that want to exploit illegal immigration. They are the ones with the jobs for slave wages, undercutting citizens.

 

The resolution is supposed to be introduced tomorrow (Friday).

My guess is when voted on it will pass both houses, Trump will veto, and then it will not receive enough votes to overcome the veto.

It’s important to get all representatives on record.