Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
The big problem with that line of thinking is that guns are a constitutional right.
Any attempt at a national emergency to take guns would not only trigger a massive revolt, but also the Supreme Court would immediately strike it down.
Also...there are currently THIRTY "national emergencies" still in use as we speak by former Presidents.
So far that did not even cause a whimper from the media and nobody tried to use a national emergency to take guns.
Presidents have done this dozens of times over the years.
Only with Trump is there an uproar from the Democrat politicians, the media, and of course the low-information crowd.
|
I like to learn stuff and so I went and looked this up
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...ntly-in-effect
it's true, 31 are still in effect.
Though none of them is about something like the wall which Trump didn't get funded even when he had both congress and senate.
And I don't think they are meant for purposes like that either.
Actually none of them - the 9/11 one aside - is even noteworthy for the public. And most people very likely never heard of them.
The topic, the reasoning behind it and the fact that Trump can't even get his own party fully behind it and he has to resort to this, makes it a lot more newsworthy than the other 31.
And can we really call people "low information crowd" when they dont know about
Quote:
|
Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (November 2015)
|