Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... |
|
Quoted:
Personally I think the Mexican border needed to be looked at 50+ years ago. The problem I have is, It didn't seem to be a national emergency, until it became trumps last campaign promise that he can make good on. And at that he waited until the dems took the house to really push for it. In my opinion, trump personally doesn't GAF about a fucking wall. He just knows he will lose all credibility if he breaks on this. As this is his last big campaign promise that he hasn't actually broken. With that said there are many, many other issues that are more detrimental to the US than the Mexican border. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious do you think there is a national emergency at the southern border? With that said there are many, many other issues that are more detrimental to the US than the Mexican border. |
|
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... MILITARY BALANCE BLOG9th July 2018 So, altogether, direct US expenses on defence in Europe are estimated to range between US$30.7bn in 2017 and US$36.0bn in 2018, or between 5.1% and 5.5% of the total US defence budget, as measured by the IISS. These numbers, it could be argued, put the total defence spending of European NATO allies By CHARLES V. PEAJanuary 17, 2018 3:30 PM According to NATO, its European members spent $242 billion on defense in 2017, or $94 billion less than if they'd all met the 2 percent benchmark. Germany was responsible for some $30 billion of that $94 billion shortfall, once again forcing the country that spent the most the United States, at $683 billion to pick up the slack, despite the fact that NATO exists primarily to protect Europe. |
|
Quoted:
Yep Totally Putin puppet to want Germany to stop fleecing the American taxpayer. Whats next paying for border protections in other countries to keep them sovereign. MILITARY BALANCE BLOG9th July 2018 So, altogether, direct US expenses on defence in Europe are estimated to range between US$30.7bn in 2017 and US$36.0bn in 2018, or between 5.1% and 5.5% of the total US defence budget, as measured by the IISS. These numbers, it could be argued, put the total defence spending of European NATO allies By CHARLES V. PEAJanuary 17, 2018 3:30 PM According to NATO, its European members spent $242 billion on defense in 2017, or $94 billion less than if they'd all met the 2 percent benchmark. Germany was responsible for some $30 billion of that $94 billion shortfall, once again forcing the country that spent the most the United States, at $683 billion to pick up the slack, despite the fact that NATO exists primarily to protect Europe. Quoted:
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... MILITARY BALANCE BLOG9th July 2018 So, altogether, direct US expenses on defence in Europe are estimated to range between US$30.7bn in 2017 and US$36.0bn in 2018, or between 5.1% and 5.5% of the total US defence budget, as measured by the IISS. These numbers, it could be argued, put the total defence spending of European NATO allies By CHARLES V. PEAJanuary 17, 2018 3:30 PM According to NATO, its European members spent $242 billion on defense in 2017, or $94 billion less than if they'd all met the 2 percent benchmark. Germany was responsible for some $30 billion of that $94 billion shortfall, once again forcing the country that spent the most the United States, at $683 billion to pick up the slack, despite the fact that NATO exists primarily to protect Europe. 
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. 
|
|
Quoted:
You think we are there to protect Europe?
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... MILITARY BALANCE BLOG9th July 2018 So, altogether, direct US expenses on defence in Europe are estimated to range between US$30.7bn in 2017 and US$36.0bn in 2018, or between 5.1% and 5.5% of the total US defence budget, as measured by the IISS. These numbers, it could be argued, put the total defence spending of European NATO allies By CHARLES V. PEAJanuary 17, 2018 3:30 PM According to NATO, its European members spent $242 billion on defense in 2017, or $94 billion less than if they'd all met the 2 percent benchmark. Germany was responsible for some $30 billion of that $94 billion shortfall, once again forcing the country that spent the most the United States, at $683 billion to pick up the slack, despite the fact that NATO exists primarily to protect Europe.
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. |
|
Quoted:
You did not answer the question,in your opinion is it a national emergency or not. And i do agree with your first point. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious do you think there is a national emergency at the southern border? With that said there are many, many other issues that are more detrimental to the US than the Mexican border. ETA: I do think the border is an issue. The problem is you can’t just elect a dictator to do whatever you want. You have to elect congressmen and senators. We bitch and moan about how they always pander and don’t really do shit. Yet every two years people like you check that R box not even knowing who the fucker is or what they stand for. This should teach you the importance of not voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
Quoted:
You think we are there to protect Europe?
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... MILITARY BALANCE BLOG9th July 2018 So, altogether, direct US expenses on defence in Europe are estimated to range between US$30.7bn in 2017 and US$36.0bn in 2018, or between 5.1% and 5.5% of the total US defence budget, as measured by the IISS. These numbers, it could be argued, put the total defence spending of European NATO allies By CHARLES V. PEAJanuary 17, 2018 3:30 PM According to NATO, its European members spent $242 billion on defense in 2017, or $94 billion less than if they'd all met the 2 percent benchmark. Germany was responsible for some $30 billion of that $94 billion shortfall, once again forcing the country that spent the most the United States, at $683 billion to pick up the slack, despite the fact that NATO exists primarily to protect Europe.
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. 
|
|
Quoted:
You think we are there to protect Europe?
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... MILITARY BALANCE BLOG9th July 2018 So, altogether, direct US expenses on defence in Europe are estimated to range between US$30.7bn in 2017 and US$36.0bn in 2018, or between 5.1% and 5.5% of the total US defence budget, as measured by the IISS. These numbers, it could be argued, put the total defence spending of European NATO allies By CHARLES V. PEAJanuary 17, 2018 3:30 PM According to NATO, its European members spent $242 billion on defense in 2017, or $94 billion less than if they'd all met the 2 percent benchmark. Germany was responsible for some $30 billion of that $94 billion shortfall, once again forcing the country that spent the most the United States, at $683 billion to pick up the slack, despite the fact that NATO exists primarily to protect Europe.
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. |
JFC |
|
Quoted:
I think that if it wasn't enough of a 'national emergency' to address the issue his first two years, it shouldn't magically become one the second the dems take the house. ETA: I do think the border is an issue. The problem is you can't just elect a dictator to do whatever you want. You have to elect congressmen and senators. We bitch and moan about how they always pander and don't really do shit. Yet every two years people like you check that R box not even knowing who the fucker is or what they stand for. This should teach you the importance of not voting for the lesser of two evils. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious do you think there is a national emergency at the southern border? With that said there are many, many other issues that are more detrimental to the US than the Mexican border. ETA: I do think the border is an issue. The problem is you can't just elect a dictator to do whatever you want. You have to elect congressmen and senators. We bitch and moan about how they always pander and don't really do shit. Yet every two years people like you check that R box not even knowing who the fucker is or what they stand for. This should teach you the importance of not voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/59063/90_jpg-869497.JPGThere's your leftists, right there. Bosom long time buddies. 
|
|
Quoted:
So you are saying it is not a national emergency. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious do you think there is a national emergency at the southern border? With that said there are many, many other issues that are more detrimental to the US than the Mexican border. ETA: I do think the border is an issue. The problem is you can't just elect a dictator to do whatever you want. You have to elect congressmen and senators. We bitch and moan about how they always pander and don't really do shit. Yet every two years people like you check that R box not even knowing who the fucker is or what they stand for. This should teach you the importance of not voting for the lesser of two evils. It sure the hell doesn’t look like it’s enough of an emergency to have to circumvent congress and the constitution over, being as he put it on a shelf for two years. |
|
Quoted: I’m saying it was an issue your demagogue put on the back burner for TWO years, and as soon as the dems took the house now it’s an ‘Emergency’. It sure the hell doesn’t look like it’s enough of an emergency to have to circumvent congress and the constitution over, being as he put it on a shelf for two years. |
|
Quoted:
Good God Melania!!! Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/59063/90_jpg-869497.JPGThere's your leftists, right there. Bosom long time buddies. |
|
Quoted:
Good God Melania!!! Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/59063/90_jpg-869497.JPGThere's your leftists, right there. Bosom long time buddies. Who’s the droopy one on the left? |
|
Quoted: Who he cheated on with a porn star that reminded him of his daughter. It was fun when morality had meaning to Republicans. Better than Hillary by orders of magnitude though...….I wish you would have realized that before you voted for her. |
|
Quoted:
The woman does not skimp on her bras, I can tell you that. Who’s the droopy one on the left? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/59063/90_jpg-869497.JPGThere's your leftists, right there. Bosom long time buddies. Who’s the droopy one on the left?
|
|
Quoted:
Oh fuck Trump also. Better than Hillary by orders of magnitude though...….I wish you would have realized that before you voted for her. Quoted:
Quoted: Who he cheated on with a porn star that reminded him of his daughter. It was fun when morality had meaning to Republicans. Better than Hillary by orders of magnitude though...….I wish you would have realized that before you voted for her. |
|
Trump did not manufacture the problems at the border. Republicans have been spineless on this countries sovereignty and the horrific problems created by illegal immigration.We all know the Democrats don't care at all and actually Want unfettered open borders. If you belive as i do it is a national emergency then Trump has the lawful authority to act. CurrentObamaApril 12, 2010[29]Sanctions[18]Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (Executive Order 13536)[83] intended to help combat Somali pirates.[4] CurrentObamaMay 16, 2012Sanctions[18]Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (Executive Order 13611)[88] intended to counter unrest in Yemen in the aftermath of the Yemeni Revolution.[4] CurrentObamaApril 3, 2014[29]Sanctions[18]Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (Executive Order 13664)[97] enabled economic sanctions to be placed due to the civil war in South Sudan; sanctions were first imposed a month later.[98] CurrentBushMay 22, 2003Legal[18]Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest (Executive Order 13303)[65] granted the Development Fund for Iraq, established the same day, legal protection in the wake of the invasion of Iraq and amidst the Iraq War. Explain how these are lawful orders of a national emergency but what is happening now at our southern border is not. By Caitlin DickersonMarch 5, 2019 2022 The number of migrant families crossing the southwest border has once again broken records, with unauthorized entries nearly double what they were a year ago, suggesting that the Trump administration's aggressive policies have not discouraged new migration to the United States. WASHINGTON (AP) The number of migrant families crossing the southwest border is again breaking records, and the crush is overwhelming border agents and straining facilities, officials said. More than 76,000 migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border last month, more than double the number from the same period last year. Most were families coming in ever-increasingly large groups there were 70 groups of more than 100 people in the past few months, and they cross illegally in extremely rural locations with few agents and staff. There were only 13 large groups during the previous budget year, and only two the year before. Report: Illegal immigration leads to 2,200 deaths, 118,000 rapes, 138,000 assaultsby Paul Bedard | August 21, 2018 05:23 PM Women crossing the U.S. border face sexual assault with little protection Nation Mar 31, 2014 1:49 PM EST By Salil Shetty, Amnesty International's Secretary General The scrub-lands and desert in Mexico's northern state of Coahuila are the last stop for Central American migrants before attempting to cross the border into the USA. By the time they reach Saltillo, Coahuila's capital, they have made a perilous journey of nearly 2,000 kilometers. Along the way, many of these men, women and children suffer assaults, robbery and abduction by criminal gangs. There are also reports of extortion and ill-treatment by police and immigration officials. Tragically, some migrants are killed before they even get this far. |
|
Quoted:
He also cheated on her with the other girl in that photo. I'm not sure when you'll realize he was actually worse in the long run than Hillary but I suspect you won't have to live through it like the rest of us. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Who he cheated on with a porn star that reminded him of his daughter. It was fun when morality had meaning to Republicans. Better than Hillary by orders of magnitude though....I wish you would have realized that before you voted for her. |
|
Quoted: He also cheated on her with the other girl in that photo. I'm not sure when you'll realize he was actually worse in the long run than Hillary but I suspect you won't have to live through it like the rest of us. I guess that is a milestone.
|
|
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... |
|
Quoted:
So you are saying it is not a national emergency. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious do you think there is a national emergency at the southern border? With that said there are many, many other issues that are more detrimental to the US than the Mexican border. ETA: I do think the border is an issue. The problem is you can't just elect a dictator to do whatever you want. You have to elect congressmen and senators. We bitch and moan about how they always pander and don't really do shit. Yet every two years people like you check that R box not even knowing who the fucker is or what they stand for. This should teach you the importance of not voting for the lesser of two evils. Then he tries to turn it into a constitutional issue and ignore the National emergency act. These frauds take any position against Trump even though it's hypocritical. |
|
Quoted:
I'm saying it was an issue your demagogue put on the back burner for TWO years, and as soon as the dems took the house now it's an 'Emergency'. It sure the hell doesn't look like it's enough of an emergency to have to circumvent congress and the constitution over, being as he put it on a shelf for two years. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious do you think there is a national emergency at the southern border? With that said there are many, many other issues that are more detrimental to the US than the Mexican border. ETA: I do think the border is an issue. The problem is you can't just elect a dictator to do whatever you want. You have to elect congressmen and senators. We bitch and moan about how they always pander and don't really do shit. Yet every two years people like you check that R box not even knowing who the fucker is or what they stand for. This should teach you the importance of not voting for the lesser of two evils. It sure the hell doesn't look like it's enough of an emergency to have to circumvent congress and the constitution over, being as he put it on a shelf for two years. I trully hope your life decision do not bite you in the ass. |
|
Quoted:
The woman does not skimp on her bras, I can tell you that. Who’s the droopy one on the left? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/59063/90_jpg-869497.JPGThere's your leftists, right there. Bosom long time buddies. Who’s the droopy one on the left? |
|
Quoted:
Well at least you FINALLY admit you favored Hillary. I guess that is a milestone. Quoted:
Quoted: He also cheated on her with the other girl in that photo. I'm not sure when you'll realize he was actually worse in the long run than Hillary but I suspect you won't have to live through it like the rest of us. I guess that is a milestone. |
|
Quoted: I didn't "favor Hillary". I was able to figure out that Trump would be worse for gun rights and the conservative movement in the long run if he won. You still haven't despite him taking a dump on gun rights and conservative values. Your only metric to drop your support of him is if he loses the primary. Fair enough...….now was it so hard to just admit that for god's sake?
|
|
Quoted:
Ok, I stand corrected, you felt Hillary would be better than Trump overall in the long run. Fair enough...….now was it so hard to just admit that for god's sake? Quoted:
Quoted: I didn't "favor Hillary". I was able to figure out that Trump would be worse for gun rights and the conservative movement in the long run if he won. You still haven't despite him taking a dump on gun rights and conservative values. Your only metric to drop your support of him is if he loses the primary. Fair enough...….now was it so hard to just admit that for god's sake?
The man has singlehandedly made an entire mess out of the GOP and NRA. The only institutions that were protecting our gun rights and you still are blind to the damage he has caused. |
|
Quoted:
I didn't "favor Hillary". I was able to figure out that Trump would be worse for gun rights and the conservative movement in the long run if he won. You still haven't despite him taking a dump on gun rights and conservative values. Your only metric to drop your support of him is if he loses the primary. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: He also cheated on her with the other girl in that photo. I'm not sure when you'll realize he was actually worse in the long run than Hillary but I suspect you won't have to live through it like the rest of us. I guess that is a milestone. Wow...delusional leftist. Remember when the IRS targeted conservatives in the tea party? You liked it, didn't you? |
|
Quoted:
Are you just now figuring out what NeverTrump meant?
The man has singlehandedly made an entire mess out of the GOP and NRA. The only institutions that were protecting our gun rights and you still are blind to the damage he has caused. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I didn't "favor Hillary". I was able to figure out that Trump would be worse for gun rights and the conservative movement in the long run if he won. You still haven't despite him taking a dump on gun rights and conservative values. Your only metric to drop your support of him is if he loses the primary. Fair enough...….now was it so hard to just admit that for god's sake? Are you just now figuring out what NeverTrump meant?
The man has singlehandedly made an entire mess out of the GOP and NRA. The only institutions that were protecting our gun rights and you still are blind to the damage he has caused.  
|
|
Quoted:
He also cheated on her with the other girl in that photo. I'm not sure when you'll realize he was actually worse in the long run than Hillary but I suspect you won't have to live through it like the rest of us. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Who he cheated on with a porn star that reminded him of his daughter. It was fun when morality had meaning to Republicans. Better than Hillary by orders of magnitude though....I wish you would have realized that before you voted for her. A black Muslim Somalian woman makes numerous anti Semitic remarks. And 5 paragraphs in to a resolution against bigotry they blame Whitey . While KKK and White supremacist should be exposed for the hateful fucks they are,what exactly does any of that have to do with what happened. 'Whereas white supremacists in the United States have ex-ploited and continue to exploit bigotry and weaponize hate for political gain, targeting traditionally persecuted peoples, including African Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants, and others with verbal attacks, incitement, and violence" "Whereas on August 11 and 12, 2017, self-identified neo-Con-federates, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen held white supremacist events in Charlottes- ville, Virginia, where they marched on a synagogue under the Nazi swastika, engaged in racist and anti-Semitic demonstrations and committed brutal and deadly violence against peaceful Americans; Whereas a white nationalist murdered nine African American worshipers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on the evening of June 17, 2015, in the hopes of igniting a nationwide race war;" |
|
Quoted:
Trump would be worse than Hillary for gun rights and the conservative movement? Wow...delusional leftist. Remember when the IRS targeted conservatives in the tea party? You liked it, didn't you? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: He also cheated on her with the other girl in that photo. I'm not sure when you'll realize he was actually worse in the long run than Hillary but I suspect you won't have to live through it like the rest of us. I guess that is a milestone. Wow...delusional leftist. Remember when the IRS targeted conservatives in the tea party? You liked it, didn't you? |
|
Quoted:
Are you just now figuring out what NeverTrump meant?
The man has singlehandedly made an entire mess out of the GOP and NRA. The only institutions that were protecting our gun rights and you still are blind to the damage he has caused. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I didn't "favor Hillary". I was able to figure out that Trump would be worse for gun rights and the conservative movement in the long run if he won. You still haven't despite him taking a dump on gun rights and conservative values. Your only metric to drop your support of him is if he loses the primary. Fair enough...….now was it so hard to just admit that for god's sake?
The man has singlehandedly made an entire mess out of the GOP and NRA. The only institutions that were protecting our gun rights and you still are blind to the damage he has caused. Hiding behind institutions is a cowardly thing to do. You don't support gun rights, you support an institution. Typical bureaucrat, typical "party-first" fake con_servative |
|
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... So of course Trump is going to try it. |
|
Quoted: Institutions do not protect gun rights. Individuals protect gun rights. Hiding behind institutions is a cowardly thing to do. You don't support gun rights, you support an institution. Typical bureaucrat, typical "party-first" fake con_servative UTTERLY DESTROYED. Yet he thinks Hillary would have been better overall for the country than Trump.
|
|
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... |
|
Quoted:
Are you just now figuring out what NeverTrump meant?
The man has singlehandedly made an entire mess out of the GOP and NRA. The only institutions that were protecting our gun rights and you still are blind to the damage he has caused. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I didn't "favor Hillary". I was able to figure out that Trump would be worse for gun rights and the conservative movement in the long run if he won. You still haven't despite him taking a dump on gun rights and conservative values. Your only metric to drop your support of him is if he loses the primary. Fair enough...….now was it so hard to just admit that for god's sake?
The man has singlehandedly made an entire mess out of the GOP and NRA. The only institutions that were protecting our gun rights and you still are blind to the damage he has caused.
|
|
Quoted:
The most important institution IMHO is the Judicial...…...we would have been UTTERLY destroyed if Hillary had won and she picked judges for 8 years. UTTERLY DESTROYED. Yet he thinks Hillary would have been better overall for the country than Trump. Quoted:
Quoted: Institutions do not protect gun rights. Individuals protect gun rights. Hiding behind institutions is a cowardly thing to do. You don't support gun rights, you support an institution. Typical bureaucrat, typical "party-first" fake con_servative UTTERLY DESTROYED. Yet he thinks Hillary would have been better overall for the country than Trump. Eta: This is why Trump scares the hell out of them. He has taken control of the institutions and intends to whip them into submission. |
|
Quoted: I didn't "favor Hillary". I was able to figure out that Trump would be worse for gun rights and the conservative movement in the long run if he won. You still haven't despite him taking a dump on gun rights and conservative values. Your only metric to drop your support of him is if he loses the primary. 
|
Jesus, listen to these two tard jousters…
 Anti-fascist meets Proud Boy in Portland - what happened? | BBC Trending Two sides of the same stupid coin. |
|
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... |
|
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2200266_Forbes-Article-Bump-Stock-Rule-Puts-Constitution-In-The-Crosshairs.html
ETA: I know anything more than 280 characters can be a challenge for Trump cheerleaders and readin's fer faggots but: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently warned Republicans that if a GOP president can declare a national emergency over a wall on the southern border, the next Democrat president could declare one over gun violence. Her threat envisioned future gun control actions without Congress. But that’s already happening—and it has made a shambles of constitutional lawmaking. The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued the Bump Stock Type Devices Final Rule late last year. This criminal regulation retroactively bans ownership of bump stocks, an accessory that helps shooters fire semi-automatic weapons more quickly by bumping the trigger with their finger when the gun recoils. When the 90-day compliance window closes on March 26, lawful purchasers of some 520,000 bump stocks must have either surrendered their devices or destroyed them. Absent judicial relief, this regulation will convert all remaining owners of bump stocks into felons without action by Congress. But the various lawsuits pending against the rule are not about guns or gun rights. Rather, these suits ask whether DOJ may create new criminal laws without involving Congress. The Constitution’s answer is a firm no. New criminal laws must clear the twin constitutional hurdles of “bicameralism” (passage by both houses of Congress) and “presentment” (Presidential signature or veto override). Even a staunch gun control advocate like Senator Dianne Feinstein has recognized that Congress must be the one to act here: “Until March 2018, ATF maintained that bump stocks could not be banned through administrative action. Legislation is necessary to ensure a ban is implemented and regulations are not tied up in court.” Likewise, the Obama Administration faced tremendous pressure from allies to ban bump stocks via regulation but decided that it could not lawfully do so unilaterally. A pen and a phone would not suffice for this. Nevertheless, current policymakers have defined two allegedly ambiguous terms in the 1934 National Firearms Act in order to ban bump stocks. Despite 80+ years of clarity and dozens of federal cases deeming the statute unambiguous, DOJ is trying to create a loophole in the definition of “machinegun” to fit bump stocks into it. Usually it’s criminal defendants who try such stunts to exempt their machineguns from the ban. This time it’s DOJ claiming ambiguity—and eroding respect for the rule of law. Worse yet, in this week’s case out of the federal district court in D.C., the judge invoked the Chevron doctrine in deferring to DOJ’s definition of the terms “single function of the trigger” and “automatically.” DOJ’s new definitions are awkward at best, but Chevron poses the more nettlesome problem. This embarrassing precedent tells federal judges to defer to the executive branch’s statutory interpretation whenever the judge decides that a statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. There is not room here for a complete takedown of Chevron, so suffice it to say that the D.C. plaintiffs did not enjoy due process of law when their judge deferred to the other party in the case rather than providing her independent judgment. Besides which, the Chevron doctrine should not even come into play where a criminal statute is concerned. The Rule of Lenity dictates construing ambiguity in a criminal statute in favor of defendants. And make no mistake; there will be defendants. DOJ has conceded in court that it will use these same definitions to go after any bump stock owners who hold onto their devices. Therein lies a future injustice. It is practically certain that some number of lawful purchasers will not get the word that bump stocks were banned. They will show up at a gun range to fire one, be seen there by an ATF agent or other law enforcement official and get arrested. The penalty is up to 10 years in prison and a permanent ban on gun ownership. These innocent owners will have no reason to have anticipated a ban—at least not a retroactive one. When Congress banned machineguns themselves in 1986, it did not do so retroactively. This fact raises two further questions. First, how can a statute that did not ban anything retroactively later be construed to authorize banning bump stocks retroactively? It cannot, at least not when interpreted reasonably. Perhaps the greatest indignity to the Constitution in these cases is the idea that a statute that quite deliberately did not ban machineguns retroactively can be rewritten later by a federal agency to ban bump stocks retroactively. DOJ—and the D.C. district court—rely on the fiction that the statute is ambiguous when it is just silent. Second, were Congress to ban bump stocks, would it do so retroactively and with the same penalty structure as owning an actual machinegun? History says no, especially since Congress has tried and failed to ban bump stocks several times—and those bills were rarely retroactive. But DOJ’s loopholing requires it to use the same penalty structure because DOJ knows that courts will not let it get away with altering the length of sentences. DOJ often assures that prosecutorial discretion will prevent injustice. Somehow trust in that is hard to muster when the Department is already mangling the Constitution to rewrite the statute. Congress is generally not willing to turn law-abiding citizens into felons, because Congress has to face voters. Administrative agencies like ATF and DOJ face no voters and show no such qualms. Bump stock owners risk prison as a result. Everyone else risks the terrifying consequences of allowing DOJ to write criminal laws without Congress. After all, if DOJ can create the bump stock rule, what stops it from bypassing Congress to create criminal laws on other subjects? Barrels of ink have been spilled criticizing the administration’s national emergency declaration to transfer some funds for building a wall on the southern border. The bump stock ban sets a far worse precedent, yet comparatively little alarm has been raised. No matter one’s feelings about gun control policy, everyone should oppose rapid-fire destruction of constitutional lawmaking. Our liberty is in jeopardy. |
|
Quoted:
You think we are there to protect Europe?
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Totally not doing Putin's bidding and trying to wreck NATO... MILITARY BALANCE BLOG9th July 2018 So, altogether, direct US expenses on defence in Europe are estimated to range between US$30.7bn in 2017 and US$36.0bn in 2018, or between 5.1% and 5.5% of the total US defence budget, as measured by the IISS. These numbers, it could be argued, put the total defence spending of European NATO allies By CHARLES V. PEAJanuary 17, 2018 3:30 PM According to NATO, its European members spent $242 billion on defense in 2017, or $94 billion less than if they'd all met the 2 percent benchmark. Germany was responsible for some $30 billion of that $94 billion shortfall, once again forcing the country that spent the most the United States, at $683 billion to pick up the slack, despite the fact that NATO exists primarily to protect Europe.
What interest does the US have in keeping Europe protected? Nationalist/Isolationists have already forgot. The stupidity has no bounds. |
|
Quoted:
I think that if it wasn’t enough of a ‘national emergency’ to address the issue his first two years, it shouldn’t magically become one the second the dems take the house. ETA: I do think the border is an issue. The problem is you can’t just elect a dictator to do whatever you want. You have to elect congressmen and senators. We bitch and moan about how they always pander and don’t really do shit. Yet every two years people like you check that R box not even knowing who the fucker is or what they stand for. This should teach you the importance of not voting for the lesser of two evils. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just curious do you think there is a national emergency at the southern border? With that said there are many, many other issues that are more detrimental to the US than the Mexican border. ETA: I do think the border is an issue. The problem is you can’t just elect a dictator to do whatever you want. You have to elect congressmen and senators. We bitch and moan about how they always pander and don’t really do shit. Yet every two years people like you check that R box not even knowing who the fucker is or what they stand for. This should teach you the importance of not voting for the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
Quoted:
|
|
Quoted:
The most important institution IMHO is the Judicial...…...we would have been UTTERLY destroyed if Hillary had won and she picked judges for 8 years. UTTERLY DESTROYED. Yet he thinks Hillary would have been better overall for the country than Trump. You pee your panties every time sHrillary's name is mentioned. Kudos (I guess) to Bannon/CA for their fear campaign success.
|