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

Damn, you just flat out ignore everything that's said COMPLETELY, dont you?

Even if there IS a crisis on the border which there isn't, but lets assume there is one for the sake of argument, it is STILL not a crisis like you and Trump describe. It is NOT coming through the desert but THROUGH THE CHECKPOINTS and the wall will have damned little to NO effect on that.

But it WILL cost a godawful amount of money, which Trump will give to his friends, and we will get nothing for it..

Bloody FRACK, you people are ****** UNBELIEVABLE. this wall amounts to basically all of us building a 500 foot tall statue of Trump giving the rest of the world the finger in New York Harbor on the base of the Statue of Liberty which we melt down to make it.

 

Then explain. Precisely how many firearms being stolen by the criminal element, actually amounts to being too many? Is there a specific cutoff point that is regarded as being acceptable for stolen firearms before it reaches a point of being unacceptable? Is there a specific numeric figure that can be cited?

For such to be included on existing firearms, especially those already in private circulation, such devices would need to be designed as component that can be installed in the already-existing space of current production firearms. And as any component can be installed in a firearm, it can just as easily be uninstalled by the legal owner and changed out, thus rendering the design entirely useless since there would be no way of stopping such an act from being committed.

Such is ultimately why declaring a national emergency on firearms, to try and mandate the purchase of a component that does not exist, would be doomed to failure.

Which modern communication devices are not. Therefore it cannot actually be done yet, and especially not on such a small scale as a firearms component.

All speculation that cannot be proven, as it would take decades before any noticeable results could be had, and long after the public has been conditioned to simply accept things as they are and unlikely to call for the experiment to be ended.

Because of the actions of the state of New Jersey. If such firearms were not mandated by law, then there would be no opposition on the matter.

 

Said nothing about having a gun with fingerprint ID, I said I have a phone with fingerprint ID. I am on my second phone with fingerprint ID (First was an Iphone SE, second is an iphone . The phone fingerprint systems are not 100% reliable, and I would not trust that sort of system for a gun. In addition, they don't work as well when under stress--I've tried using the fingerprint reader in an almost emergency situation, and it did not work. My point about the FBI and Secret Service is that until the technology is reliable enough for them to adopt, it's not reliable enough for me.

 

Except that Trump is following the laws Congress passed. Big difference.

 

Claiming the border crisis is an emergency is abusing the law passed by Congress. If you're going to stretch it that far, you can say that Obama's DACA was doing the same--basically prosecutorial discretion. Either way, Presidential power needs to be scaled back. I don't care who's President for that. I believe in a government in which power is dispersed, and I don't want any branch of government too powerful. Congress should not be giving the executive branch much leeway.

 

Only abuse to those whose feelings are hurt. There is nothing in the law that would back your claim.

 

Woohoo, ban guns, free healthcare for everyone, feed the hungry, house the homeless... The next Dem President is going to have a blast.

 

1. Congress has not "rejected" a Southern Border Wall, which implies legislative action against it. They have declined to appropriate funds for it in the current budget. HUGE difference. Get HONEST.
2. Anything to keep that permanent dependence factory up and running, amirite? Any distortion, cherry-picking, ignoring facts and crimes, ANYTHING. Who cares about the welfare of U.S. citizens so long as the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex can keep buying votes and gorging off the non government-dependent private sector? Right? Disgusting.

At least thieves in prison do their own stealing, making them morally superior to a vast majority of Complex denizens.

 

And trump seeks to bypass the Constitution in order to feed red meat to his base. So you really don't support the Constitution, which makes you un-American.

Care to try that in non gibberish?

 

We are at fairly low levels of illegal border crossings historically. Ten years ago, I would have bought that this was an emergency. It's not. He's lying, and abusing our governmental processes. He's as bad as Obama. Presidential power needs to be reined in by Congress.

 

If you think 60,000 a month actually apprehended without knowing how many are not is a low.

 

So you oppose Pelosi advancing any legislation because...McConnell?

How about your view of the National Emergencies Act? Should it be repealed?

 

That statement is ludicrous. In December and January Democrats voted for billions of dollars for border security. In 2013, they voted for over $40B in border security funds. The bill was trashed in the Republican House.

You are exaggerating your wild claims to hide the real issues. It is not about border security. It is not about illegal immigration, an unsolvable problem that has existed for decades.

It is about Trump's wall. It is about Trump attempting to usurp the powers of Congress to get funding for his wall. Because Congress, including the GOP-controlled Senate, denied Trump funds for his wall, it is about a Constitutional crisis in which Trump is challenging the Separation of Powers principle of our Constitution.

Trump and his followers can't see the serious problem if Trump is successful in this. He will set a precedent. If a President doesn't get his way, he can declare a national emergency and get what he wants that way. That means, if Trump is successful, in 2021, President Ocasio-Cortez can declare climate change a national disaster and invoke programs within the Green New Deal.

If Trump is successful, all future Presidents can get their way by simply declaring a national emergency. That is the Pandora's Box Trump would be opening and he and his fans can't see it.

It is why Republicans in Congress should not vote to limit the powers of Congress.

 

Your question has nothing to do with how we solve public safety problems. It's not how we improve auto accident rates. It's not how we reduced the number of airplane crashes. It's not how we reduced the number killed in mud slides. It's not how we make roads safer. Etc. Etc.

What we do is find significant sources of danger and work to reduce them. It's an iterative process, since no single solution can possibly make a change large enough to be considered "the solution".

I specifically stated that new guns would be the obvious target and that existing guns would have to age out. Or, there could be reasons that some owners would choose to retrofit where possible. For example, if laws begin actually requiring responsiible ownership, it could be that owners with these devices would be exempt.

Well, this particualr direction might not be ready immediately. But, that doesn't mean that all law on guns is doomed to failure.

I don't agree with this at all. Stuff like bluetooth and internet are not requirements.

This problem with guns is NOT going to simply melt away.

Our nation conntinuse to become more urban. Increased desnisty is sure to make this more of an issue, not less of an issue.

 

Oh, good lord. Please address what I actually say.

There is a reason for the national emergency act. It has NOTHINGto do with a wall against the number of poor peeople and refugees that is growing smaller and can and has been addressed in many ways.

 

As I've said several times now:
- fingerprint is only one way of identifying the legitimate user.
- the id function does NOT have to be performed at the point of use.
- the general public is a VERY different issue than iis the Secret Serivice and FBI. We given them all sorts of priveleges and weapons that we do NOT give to others. And, they aren't losing enough guns to matter, while citizens clearly are.

 

The National Emergencies Act is the legal authority Trump is using to move funds around. It has everything to do with this topic. I'm not sure how you separate that law and this topic.

 

It appears that Republicans in Congress will support Trump. Not enough of them will support a House resolution to eliminate Trump's imaginary national emergency to override a Presidential veto. The effect of this will be that Trump can continue in his effort to usurp the power of Congress to control appropriations. Congress denied Trump funding for his wall, and he wants to get around Congress to get the funding.

I would love to hear Republican members of Congress explain why they are voting to limit the powers of Congress.

 

Please reread. There is no basis for declaring an emergency.

There isn't an emergency simply because the president SAYS there is an emergency - unless the objectivve here is to move our president toward being our dictator, with the power to ignore congress.

There has to be a legitimate reason to decide to let the president totally ignore the separation of powers.

 

The precedent for such was set in the united states over forty years ago. Pray tell, why is that simple fact so difficult to comprehend?

 

The claim made on the part of yourself is that not enough firearms are stolen from law enforcement officers and agencies to qualify as being a problem when it comes to the matter of public safety. Indicating the belief that there is a round, numeric, citeable amount of firearms being stolen that must actually be reached before it can be considered a problem, and rise to the standard of being a threat to public safety. Either cite the amount, or admit that the number of firearms lost by law enforcement is a serious problem that should not be regarded as acceptable.

Exactly what is "responsible ownership" with regard to firearms, and how does it translate into including unreliable, unproven, so-called "smart" devices into the construction of firearms?

Beyond that particular matter, can a so-called "smart" device that is supposed to verify to operator of the firearm, actually prevent the legal operator from using their firearm for the purpose of committing a mass shooting, and killing a significant number of individuals, just as was done by Stephen Paddock? If not, then the proposed device is utterly useless, and serves no legitimate point in even being discussed under the pretense of a national emergency.

Firearm-related restrictions are indeed doomed when the discussion revolves around declaring a national emergency to try and implement them without going through the united states congress first.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this nonsensical proposal of so-called "smart" firearms.

The united states does not have a problem with firearms. What it ultimately has is a problem with individuals who ultimately make the decision to use firearms for illegal purposes. The united states has a problem with individuals who regard murdering others and resorting to unrestrained violence as an acceptable course of action.

The reason the united states cannot resolve its apparent problem with firearms, is because it is not focusing on the actual problem at hand. Instead the united states is obsessed, to the point of fanaticism, with scapegoating an inanimate object simply to avoid holding individuals personally responsible for their own actions and decisions.

It will still not be a legal basis for attempting to declare a national emergency to implement firearm-related restrictions. That is the point that has been missed on the part of yourself throughout this entire discussion.

 

I would love to hear your explanation as to why you don't want the National Emergencies Act mentioned, even though it's the legal authority for this entire topic. You keep dodging that, and continue to filibuster on the real issue: Trump is not usurping Congressional authority, Congress delegated that authority through the National Emergencies Act. So do you want that act repealed or not?

 

How does the National Emergencies Act define an emergency?

 

I don't know.

But, regardless of its origin, it has to be stopped.

This is EXACTLY the reason that when we council those building new governments we tell them NOT to use our system.

It's a weakness we have. And, the only defense is to work diligently to slow the move toward dictatorship.

 

Congress made a decision on the border.

Trump ABSOLUTELY is contravening the expressed will of congress.