• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pelosi: Democrat President Could Use Emergency Powers For Gun Control

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Vic said:
This is what politics look like to an entitled spoiled brat who thinks that they should always be able to get whatever they want without having to compromise, and that the failure of other parties to give into their demands can only be from malice.
Click to expand...


More, "I don't like the guy." and not enough caring about what is good for America.
 
SlowSpyder said:
What's funny is how butt hurt you guys are over a physical barrier on a border that we have problems in regards to illegal crossings and human trafficking. This shouldn't even be an issue, but the obstructionists platform of "orange man bad!" is the real brainwashing going on here.
Click to expand...

Something not necessary to burn the Constitution over no matter how you try to divert. Trump admitted the process was working but not fast enough to satisfy himself and so he attempts usurpation even when in his own words it is not necessary.

Ecce Homo.
 
ecogen said:
You should enjoy your guns while you still can, the next dem president might also be a "man of action".
Click to expand...


So, you'd be ok with a Democrat POTUS taking my guns, who cares about the 2A, the bill of rights? But you aren't ok with Trump declaring an emergency for a drop in the bucket worth of funds to help secure a border that we undeniably have a problem at. I do not support sex trafficking, do you?

And btw, if a Democrat POTUS tried, I think you'd see just what the 2A is actually for. And I don't think any of us want that.
 
SlowSpyder said:
It kind of does though. What did Obama do to earn his peace prize, other than being a Democrat brown skinned president? I imagine Trump has done more to push peace in areas of conflict than any POTUS in recent history.
Click to expand...

He didn't do much of anything. Even I will admit that was a stupid award. But to say that makes all the other recipients "meaningless" is about as close minded and short-sighted a thing as I can imagine.

As for your "Trump pushing peace" comment, again I will suggest you STFU.
 
SlowSpyder said:
So, you'd be ok with a Democrat POTUS taking my guns, who cares about the 2A, the bill of rights? But you aren't ok with Trump declaring an emergency for a drop in the bucket worth of funds to help secure a border that we undeniably have a problem at. I do not support sex trafficking, do you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, all I'm reading from your post is that you just hate Dems. Guns please.
 
Homerboy said:
He didn't do much of anything. Even I will admit that was a stupid award. But to say that makes all the other recipients "meaningless" is about as close minded and short-sighted a thing as I can imagine.

As for your "Trump pushing peace" comment, again I will suggest you STFU.
Click to expand...


I am not saying it never had meaning. I am saying it doesn't have meaning today, you can literally do nothing, even advance armed conflict and win one based on being a left leaning minority, nothing more. It really takes a hit to the credibility for that.
 
SlowSpyder said:
How is this unconstitutional but Pelosi threatening to jump over the 2A is not? In fact, just the emergency, how is that unconstitutional? We'll get back to Pelosi's threat. But how is this unconstitutional, tell me. All ears.
Click to expand...

It's already been explained a dozen times over in this thread. So either those ears of yours are completely deaf or you're a moron.

And how are you going to 'get back to Pelosi's threat?' That sounds like a threat to me. More right wing violence no doubt. Everyone already knows that the reason Righties love the 2a so much is so they can shoot up liberals at schools, concerts, churches, mosques, and synagogues.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I don't see it as unconstitutional. Guess we'll let the courts decide. Trump is a man of action, and Old Hickory type.
Click to expand...


Why would he recognize one branch when he flouts the Constitution in assuming their powers and no need?

Mark my words, if all the Powers legitimized in the Constitution stand against Trump you will find a way to deflect, divert or justify- perhaps all.

This man stands against everything embodied in the Constitution, every principle, by the act of disregarding its very purpose. He occupies a lower tier than Arnold and the Founders based on everything they have written would likely have had him at the end of a rope.

Let's see if your would-be tyrant survives our founding principles and way of government and a new Empire arises or not.

Enemies domestic indeed.
 
SlowSpyder said:
2A shield blocks people from you from enforcing your emotion-driven foolishness.
Click to expand...

Not anymore if you have your way. The process of legislation rests in the hands of Congress and in the hands of any executive at whim. The 2A wouldn't be violated, just reinterpreted to allow the seizure of all weapons until the War on Terror ends and humans don't shoot each other. Only the Master gets to decide what is an emergency and that doesn't even require need. You don't get a free pass.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Yea, I know the Democrats was a coup so badly. At the same time they're hoping for that, they're screaming about the constitution and Trump's emergency declaration. The ironing is delicious.
Click to expand...
It's interesting how righties keep talking about how the Democrats want a civil war, and they're the only ones saying that. So really, it's just another bit of right wing fearmongering to justify right wing violence. Which is just how right wingers work. There is no freedom that someone else enjoys that you wouldn't happily take away by falsely claiming those freedoms are a threat. Your fearmongering has become what defines you.
 
Vic said:
It's already been explained a dozen times over in this thread. So either those ears of yours are completely deaf or you're a moron.

And how are you going to 'get back to Pelosi's threat?' That sounds like a threat to me. More right wing violence no doubt. Everyone already knows that the reason Righties love the 2a so much is so they can shoot up liberals at schools, concerts, churches, mosques, and synagogues.
Click to expand...


I was not threatening her, I was saying let's just discuss the Trump part, we'll come back to the Pelosi part. Geez dude...

Won't even address your second section, it is just drivel.
 
Vic said:
It's interesting how righties keep talking about how the Democrats want a civil war, and they're the only ones saying that. So really, it's just another bit of right wing fearmongering to justify right wing violence. Which is just how right wingers work. There is no freedom that someone else enjoys that you wouldn't happily take away by falsely claiming those freedoms are a threat. Your fearmongering has become what defines you.
Click to expand...


I specifically said that no one wants that. Not me, not you. But, there is a cause and effect. If the government honestly tries to take everyone's guns based on a liberal POTUS's EO or emergency declaration, there will be push back and I would expect to see the start of armed conflict against a government that has become tyrannical at that point. This is not what I want, but it is what I think would happen. I hope you can see the difference.
 
Vic said:
Your fearmongering has become what defines you.
Click to expand...

I'll disagree to the extent that his fearmongering defines him in part. The rest is the willful overthrow of Constitutional rule by saying "I don't see this as unconstitutional and "man of action"" when the Constitution plainly states who has what responsibility in the sense we are discussing and that every leader of a genocide was also a "man of action" as if that excused the action.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I specifically said that no one wants that. Not me, not you. But, there is a cause and effect. If the government honestly tries to take everyone's guns based on a liberal POTUS's EO or emergency declaration, there will be push back and I would expect to see the start of armed conflict against a government that has become tyrannical at that point. This is not what I want, but it is what I think would happen. I hope you can see the difference.
Click to expand...

Aka, slow only wants R tyranny.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I specifically said that no one wants that. Not me, not you. But, there is a cause and effect. If the government honestly tries to take everyone's guns based on a liberal POTUS's EO or emergency declaration, there will be push back and I would expect to see the start of armed conflict against a government that has become tyrannical at that point. This is not what I want, but it is what I think would happen. I hope you can see the difference.
Click to expand...

So if you take the rights of others as long as it's not guns you are fine with that. Pushback- oh you have only seen the tip of the iceberg and I'll predict you are on the same side as Marie Antoinette. Hopefully, this will not end in a similar outcome.
 
SlowSpyder said:
2A shield blocks people from you from enforcing your emotion-driven foolishness.
Click to expand...
Lol. Your ilk is declaring a national emergency over an obvious non-emergency, and accusing others of emotional foolishness?
That's just too much.

Also, what you described is the one thing the 2a doesn't protect anyone from. The one thing the 2a does not do is protect individuals from mob tyranny, or protect individuals from govt abuse when the majority of the people are indifferent. Guns won't save you then, bro, they'll just put you in the headlines.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'll disagree to the extent that his fearmongering defines him in part. The rest is the willful overthrow of Constitutional rule by saying "I don't see this as unconstitutional and "man of action"" when the Constitution plainly states who has what responsibility in the sense we are discussing and that every leader of a genocide was also a "man of action" as if that excused the action.
Click to expand...


You keep saying that what Trump is doing is unconstitutional, but I just don't see how. Securing drop in the bucket funds for a border that allows an ongoing invasion to occur, human trafficking, unvetted illegal immigration. Sounds like an emergency to me.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
So if you take the rights of others as long as it's not guns you are fine with that. Pushback- oh you have only seen the tip of the iceberg and I'll predict you are on the same side as Marie Antoinette. Hopefully, this will not end in a similar outcome.
Click to expand...


What rights are being taken away from you or anyone by Trump securing $8 billion in emergency fund to combat an emergency? Your fear is what defines you, your TDS is showing. #liberalbraindefect
 
ch33zw1z said:
Oh, you means voters vote for something and old timers are afraid of change.

Why do you hate democracy?
Click to expand...

Oh but he wants so much more. He wants people to defy the Constitutional power of a President to do whatever he or she wishes as a matter of personal preference. Let's oblige him and get a head start with Trump.

This action alone is grounds for removal from office.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Oh, you means voters vote for something and old timers are afraid of change.

Why do you hate democracy?
Click to expand...


Sheriffs take an oath to uphold the constitution. I think it is reasonable for them to wait until the courts decide when a law looks to be clearly in conflict with the rights guaranteed by the constitution.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Oh but he wants so much more. He wants people to defy the Constitutional power of a President to do whatever he or she wishes as a matter of personal preference. Let's oblige him and get a head start with Trump.

This action alone is grounds for removal from office.
Click to expand...

59% of WA voters went in for the ballot. This is an example of the right being so used to minority rule, that they stamp their feet and cry when they don't get their way.

Those damn city slickers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top