• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harris promises to violate The Constitution

Trump is setting the precedents, did you expect future candidates to not follow-up?
 
And like with Trump when he oversteps his power there will be lawsuits and injunctions if Harris tries this. Any dumbass who cheared Trump for his EO to build a wall has only themselves to blame when whatever Demcratic president does the same to guns or the environment
 
This would create such a backlash it would not come to pass.
 
Chillfolks said:
And like with Trump when he oversteps his power there will be lawsuits and injunctions if Harris tries this. Any dumbass who cheared Trump for his EO to build a wall has only themselves to blame when whatever Demcratic president does the same to guns or the environment
Click to expand...

You mean like the dumb asses who cheered former president Obama when he created a de facto amnesty to illegals who were allegedly brought here as minors with his executive order?
 
Chillfolks said:
And like with Trump when he oversteps his power there will be lawsuits and injunctions if Harris tries this. Any dumbass who cheared Trump for his EO to build a wall has only themselves to blame when whatever Demcratic president does the same to guns or the environment
Click to expand...

Not that I'm defending it, but an EO to fund a wall is a very different thing than an EO to put limits on a constitutional right.
 
Tlrmln said:
Not that I'm defending it, but an EO to fund a wall is a very different thing than an EO to put limits on a constitutional right.
Click to expand...

I’m not real interested and this is wrong forum for the debate, but I think it’s possible to make the argument having a president bypass congress, who has denied him funding, is as much a constitutional issue as one involving gun control
 
"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So Kamala Harris is proposing to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms 100 days after her inauguration?

That doesn't make a lick of sense (to me).

She would immediately be impeached.
 
Chillfolks said:
I’m not real interested and this is wrong forum for the debate, but I think it’s possible to make the argument having a president bypass congress, who has denied him funding, is as much a constitutional issue as one involving gun control
Click to expand...

Except he's not really bypassing Congress -- he's just reallocating funding that was already approved by Congress, in an area where he arguably has discretion on how it should be spent.

Bypassing Congress to effectively change the law and create new restrictions on personal freedom, on the other hand, is a totally different ballgame.
 
SkyChief said:
"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So Kamala Harris is proposing to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms 100 days after her inauguration?

That doesn't make a lick of sense (to me).

She would immediately be impeached.
Click to expand...

Not unless you flip the House.
 
SkyChief said:
"...the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So Kamala Harris is proposing to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms 100 days after her inauguration?

That doesn't make a lick of sense (to me).

She would immediately be impeached.
Click to expand...

Limiting guns is not "infringing." To infringe is to break, the word you're thinking of is "abridge." The First Amendment rights are not to be abridged, the Second is not to ve infringed. See the difference?

By the way, those words are exactly the wording of each Amedment. It should tell you something that the same word is not used.
 
rocket88 said:
Limiting guns is not "infringing." To infringe is to break, the word you're thinking of is "abridge." The First Amendment rights are not to be abridged, the Second is not to ve infringed. See the difference?

By the way, those words are exactly the wording of each Amedment. It should tell you something that the same word is not used.
Click to expand...

Infringe means far more than that.BTW under the tenth amendment, the federal government really has no proper power in this area. I don't think anyone really believes the founders intended the commerce clause as a gun control empowerment vehicle for the federal government.
 
TurtleDude said:
Infringe means far more than that.BTW under the tenth amendment, the federal government really has no proper power in this area. I don't think anyone really believes the founders intended the commerce clause as a gun control empowerment vehicle for the federal government.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but the founders also didn't intend blacks to vote. Or women, or most white men actually. So I automatically discount "original intent."

That said, I don't think the commerce clause really applies
 
rocket88 said:
Probably not, but the founders also didn't intend blacks to vote. Or women, or most white men actually. So I automatically discount "original intent."

That said, I don't think the commerce clause really applies
Click to expand...

Those disenfranchised were added by constitutional amendment
 
I'm the 15th post in this thread and I have yet to see evidence of ANYONE actually reading what Harris really said. How not surprising:

Harris said:
At a town hall hosted by CNN, Ms. Harris said that, if elected, she would sign an executive order mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year. The executive actions would also include more strident regulation of gun manufacturers that could result in revoked licenses or prosecution, as well as an attempt to close the loophole that allows some domestic abusers to purchase guns if their victim is an unwedded partner.
Click to expand...
There is NOTHING there which even so much as hints as violation of the second amendment (with the only potential exception being domestic abusers).

As usual, it is nothing but lies and fear mongering by gun supporters who do not care about facts, just frothing at the mouth.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm the 15th post in this thread and I have yet to see evidence of ANYONE actually reading what Harris really said. How not surprising:

There is NOTHING there which even so much as hints as violation of the second amendment (with the only potential exception being domestic abusers).

As usual, it is nothing but lies and fear mongering by gun supporters who do not care about facts, just frothing at the mouth.
Click to expand...

Strange that you would tell us exactly how many posts there are in this thread, but then fail to mention that only one of them (and not the OP) even remotely hinted at the idea that what Harris proposes to do is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Tlrmln said:
Strange that you would tell us exactly how many posts there are in this thread, but then fail to mention that only one of them (and not the OP) even remotely hinted at the idea that what Harris proposes to do is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Strange that you apparently don't even read the titles to the threads you post in...
 
Slyfox696 said:
Strange that you apparently don't even read the titles to the threads you post in...
Click to expand...

Strange that the words "2nd Amendment" don't appear anywhere in the title, and the Constitution consists of far more than just the 2nd Amendment, including all those parts telling us what the various branches of government have the power to do.
 
Tlrmln said:
Strange that the words "2nd Amendment" don't appear anywhere in the title, and the Constitution consists of far more than just the 2nd Amendment, including all those parts telling us what the various branches of government have the power to do.
Click to expand...
:lamo :lamo :lamo

We're in the Gun Control forum! What the hell do you think this thread is about?

Wow, I've said this several times already this week, but your post has now risen to the stupidest post I have read all week.

You right now: "Hey guys, I know we're in the Gun Control forum and the thread title says Harris is going to violate the Constitution and when you read the title of the article it says 'Gun control via executive order?', but we have absolutely no way of knowing that this thread is about the 2nd Amendment".

:lamo :lamo

Thank you, that laugh was very much enjoyed this morning. Please feel free to keep me entertained by posting more and digging your hole deeper and deeper.
 
So idiot leftists equate the passage of an Executive Order that enforces existing immigration law and secures our borders...the primary mission of the federal government and one that congress (both parties) continues to fail miserably at...to a threat by a candidate to violate the 2nd Amendment and the legally GUARANTEED Constitutional rights of American citizens........

Thats says a **** ton more about idiot leftists than it does about the stupidity of Kamala Harris, and it says a LOT abut her.
 
Slyfox696 said:
:lamo :lamo :lamo

We're in the Gun Control forum! What the hell do you think this thread is about?

Wow, I've said this several times already this week, but your post has now risen to the stupidest post I have read all week.

You right now: "Hey guys, I know we're in the Gun Control forum and the thread title says Harris is going to violate the Constitution and when you read the title of the article it says 'Gun control via executive order?', but we have absolutely no way of knowing that this thread is about the 2nd Amendment".

:lamo :lamo

Thank you, that laugh was very much enjoyed this morning. Please feel free to keep me entertained by posting more and digging your hole deeper and deeper.
Click to expand...

Worse case of projecting that I've seen in years. You **** up, and instead of owning it, you dig yourself in even deeper. Classic.
 
Airyaman said:
Trump is setting the precedents, did you expect future candidates to not follow-up?
Click to expand...

Although this actually is an emergency - part of a public health crisis.
 
Tlrmln said:
Strange that you would tell us exactly how many posts there are in this thread, but then fail to mention that only one of them (and not the OP) even remotely hinted at the idea that what Harris proposes to do is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

What will she do that violates the second amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom