-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Pelosi threatens 2A with Emergency in next Dem presidency
- Thread starter VTski4x4
- Start date
I have heard this. "tell that to the grieving mother who just lost her second child to this crap" is my response. It's a big problem here in the Berkshires. Friends of mine are losing their kids. And these are good people, not the welfare rats that come to mind when you think of OD.
It's sad.
![[mg]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/036.gif "Machine Gun [mg]")
yanquidog
NES Member
And my pre bans,That is to say, Me and Barbara-Jean...
Not my Barbara-Jean, but you get the gist...
and my CPAP. I want to bring my CPAP.
I want Barbara -Jean,the c-pap, and preban magazines.
Buck F
NES Member
Dems will declare one (or several) whether he sets a precedent or not. The Left has become completely unhinged. The first thing they’ll do the next time they control the White House and Senate is remove the 60 vote rule for passing legislation. Mitch should have done it a year ago. Did you happen to miss the lengths they went to with Kavanaugh or the idiocy of the Green New Deal they’re proposing and actually congratulating themselves over? Thinking that not creating a precedent will prevent them from doing something down the road is right out of the Neville Chamberlain playbook. Someone will create the precedent, might as well be him.
if you think the Dems are not coming for your guns anyway you are either a) living on another planet or b) living under a rock.
In any event, if this happens and a dem president declares an emergency action the 2A issue will finally have to be heard by scotus.
And if RBG kicks off soon and Trump gets another pick then hopefully this would be a non issue.
In any event, if this happens and a dem president declares an emergency action the 2A issue will finally have to be heard by scotus.
And if RBG kicks off soon and Trump gets another pick then hopefully this would be a non issue.
Beretta92FS
NES Member
There is a big difference declaring a national emergency to stop invasions on the southern border, and declaring a national emergency to confiscate citizen's legally owned private property.
amm5061
NES Member
Not in their eyes.
mikeboston
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 452
- Likes
- 392
So they will suspend the bill of rights claiming a national emergency or they will pick and choose which one of the rights they suspend? Once people become vocal about that will they suspend the 1st amendment as well to quiet down everyone? Will they suspend elections because the “Russians influenced” the results? All the above sound like martial law to me and most likely will result in confrontation with groups of people who will oppose it.
But instead they can continue down the same path and slowly turn seat after seat Democratic and then ban guns through legislative action. Problem solved.
I think the legislative action is what they will choose otherwise they would have done what Pelosi said already. They even changed the rules during the Obama administration to pass Obama care and they didn’t touch the 2nd. Once they change the demographics enough to secure them majority for the next 100 years then they will attack the 2nd.
But instead they can continue down the same path and slowly turn seat after seat Democratic and then ban guns through legislative action. Problem solved.
I think the legislative action is what they will choose otherwise they would have done what Pelosi said already. They even changed the rules during the Obama administration to pass Obama care and they didn’t touch the 2nd. Once they change the demographics enough to secure them majority for the next 100 years then they will attack the 2nd.
NHKevin
NES Member
Wait - you think Trump isn't attacking the 1st amendment?
mikeboston
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2009
- Messages
- 452
- Likes
- 392
The topic is “Pelosi threatens 2A with emergency in next dem presidency” so my response is specific to the topic and I gave a hypothetical argument and my opinion that they wouldn’t do that since they will be able to do it legislatively. I don’t feel I need to comment on Trump under this topic.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
and it's a right.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
NHKevin
NES Member
You seriously don't see how he attacks and tries to de-legitimize the media?
The media has “de-legitimized” themselves.
That's not an "attack on the first amendment" by any definition. How is he restricting their ability to broadcast or publish anything? Or even advocating for the
same? There's a big difference between saying "I think some of these people are full of shit" vs saying "I think that we ought to ban these people from speaking". Also... there is NO ENTITLEMENT to any outlet's "legitimacy" wrt the 1st amendment. Are you actually arguing that they should be taken seriously just BECAUSE they're a news or TV outlet?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Frankly most MSM should be shat upon on a regular basis. Maybe it'd result in a net improvement in journalism in this country. 3/4ths of the stuff published in most TV and print media these days is hyperbole laden garbage designed to evoke an emotional retard response instead of to provoke thought, civil discussion, or debate.
-Mike
As many of you know, I’m not much of a Trump fan. But not only is him calling the media out on their garbage not an attack on the first amendment, by attempting to make them accountable, he’s doing more to advocate for the first amendment. Open and HONEST reporting is one of the fundamental tenets of freedom of the press. What the MSM does is anything but. In fact the MSM and the large social media outlets have been doing their best to attack the free press by themselves attacking other forms of media, spreading lies, and suppressing dissenting views on their on outlets.
So who is worse? I think that answer is obvious.
So who is worse? I think that answer is obvious.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
KMM696
NES Member
No.
The press is not the 1st amendment - and if I've ever seen anything that deserved to be attacked, it would be today's press. The 1st amendment does not in any way protect the press from the consequences of their speech, it only prevents laws from abridging it. Trump can call them whatever comes to mind - craven, lying scum comes to mind, but whatever. Until he signs a law that says "MSNBC - Shut the f*** Up" he's not violating the 1st.
M60
NES Member
Now that right there is just plain funny.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 2,734
- Likes
- 3,220
I dunno. Like Trump or hate him, you have to admit no matter what happens, good bad or indifferent, somehow or other it always seems to lead to a discussion about him. Fercrissakes Brady wins the Superbowl again, and whats the first question some jerk asks him? I used to believe Mr. Han when told us "Kung Fu is everything" and "Everything is Kung Fu" but I got to tell ya....... I'm starting to wonder if it really isn't Trump.
Buck F
NES Member
Criticizing the media for their biased reporting is not attacking the First Amendment. Are those who criticize Fox or Breitbart attacking the First Amendment? Trump is not stopping the media from spouting their nonsense, THAT would be an attack on the First Amendment. They have de-legitimized themselves all on their own. While they have special protections and are necessary for a free society, they are no more righteous, moral or unbiased than anyone else and they’re certainly fair game for criticism.
Last edited:
