NationStates

Telconi wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:I mean he has declared the emergency, and is almost certainly going to go forward with attempting to build the wall using funds allocated that way. We will have to see how this plays out in the Courts, House and Senate. I can still say I think it is a worrying overreach of power, and I hope congress fixes it eventually. I really don't like the idea of a president being able to take funding from FEMA and the Department of Defense to use as he sees fit, including the ability to seize private property, when congress has specifically denied that funding. In this situation a president only needs to deny the opposition a 2/3rds majority and they can do a lot.

The fact that it's an overreach is exactly why I want him to do it.

You want the president to overstep the intent of the law? I mean is it just that you want him to do this specific project? Do you want a more powerful presidency? Do you hope this will force congress to fix the law at hand?

Spirit of Hope wrote:

Telconi wrote:
The fact that it's an overreach is exactly why I want him to do it.

You want the president to overstep the intent of the law? I mean is it just that you want him to do this specific project? Do you want a more powerful presidency? Do you hope this will force congress to fix the law at hand?

It'll prompt a fix, and I'd much rather Trump overreach the law in a way that has no effect on me, and prompts the fix, than someone on the other side overreach the law to attack me.

Paddy O Fernature wrote:

Gig em Aggies wrote:
PATRIOTS ASSEMBLE...…..https://youtu.be/YoTThWeyR0Q

Love that movie.

These two makes more sense, though.

I just realized the mountie was played by Nicholas Cage Steven Wright.

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:

Paddy O Fernature wrote:
Love that movie.

These two makes more sense, though.

I just realized the mountie was played by Nicholas Cage.

That's Steven Wright according to one of the comments, real funny scenes though.

Chernoslavia wrote:

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:
These two makes more sense, though.

I just realized the mountie was played by Nicholas Cage.

That's Steven Wright according to one of the comments, real funny scenes though.

I'm bad with names.

Still, would be nifty to have seen a movie with John Candy and Nick Cage going full-ham.

Hurtful Thoughts wrote:

Chernoslavia wrote:
That's Steven Wright according to one of the comments, real funny scenes though.

I'm bad with names.

Still, would be nifty to have seen a movie with John Candy and Nick Cage going full-ham.

what about The Shining and Joker version of Jack Nicholson and Hugh Jackman or Ryan Reynolds?

So apparently h.r. 8 universal background check bullshit had a requirement stripped from the bill that would had informed ice if an illegal alien failed a background check.
Just goes to show that shit like this is never about safety, just more of the same of regulating a negative enumerated right as a privilege. Background checks need to be stricken, a right delayed is a right denied.

Grinning Dragon wrote:So apparently h.r. 8 universal background check bullshit had a requirement stripped from the bill that would had informed ice if an illegal alien failed a background check.
Just goes to show that shit like this is never about safety, just more of the same of regulating a negative enumerated right as a privilege. Background checks need to be stricken, a right delayed is a right denied.

At this moment if things keep going that way there going I say let the democrats to 1/2 the country and the Republican the other one can screw there citizens over and negate there safety and security because feelings and the other can let it citizens have firearms for protection and sport while not hindering the freedom of its citizens.

Gig em Aggies wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:So apparently h.r. 8 universal background check bullshit had a requirement stripped from the bill that would had informed ice if an illegal alien failed a background check.
Just goes to show that shit like this is never about safety, just more of the same of regulating a negative enumerated right as a privilege. Background checks need to be stricken, a right delayed is a right denied.

At this moment if things keep going that way there going I say let the democrats to 1/2 the country and the Republican the other one can screw there citizens over and negate there safety and security because feelings and the other can let it citizens have firearms for protection and sport while not hindering the freedom of its citizens.

5 repubs also voted to advance the bill out of committee even after their failed attempt to keep the reporting provision to ice intact. How about we just divide the US into 99% pro 2nd Amendment peeps and 1% anti gun peeps?

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Gig em Aggies wrote:At this moment if things keep going that way there going I say let the democrats to 1/2 the country and the Republican the other one can screw there citizens over and negate there safety and security because feelings and the other can let it citizens have firearms for protection and sport while not hindering the freedom of its citizens.

5 repubs also voted to advance the bill out of committee even after their failed attempt to keep the reporting provision to ice intact. How about we just divide the US into 99% pro 2nd Amendment peeps and 1% anti gun peeps?

That could work as long as they sign a deal to move all anti-2nd amendment peeps to California then get the Pope to perform an excommuncation

Washington Resistance Army wrote:hmmm

I do hope the supreme court takes it on and slaps new jersey around like the red headed step child it is.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:hmmm

I do hope the supreme court takes it on and slaps new jersey around like the red headed step child it is.

ehh there more of the USA's black sheep people make fun of them and know one cares if there feelings get hurt.

So, when can we get a bill into office that allows cannons and such to not need a permit or unneeded paperwork and cost just to own? Because I would want a bill like that. Even though I dont have the money to own one.

Germanic Templars wrote:So, when can we get a bill into office that allows cannons and such to not need a permit or unneeded paperwork and cost just to own? Because I would want a bill like that. Even though I dont have the money to own one.

You don't need a bill for that.

They're already legal.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Germanic Templars wrote:So, when can we get a bill into office that allows cannons and such to not need a permit or unneeded paperwork and cost just to own? Because I would want a bill like that. Even though I dont have the money to own one.

You don't need a bill for that.

They're already legal.

But they do require permits and unneeded paperwork.

Telconi wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:You don't need a bill for that.

They're already legal.

But they do require permits and unneeded paperwork.

From what I'm reading, that's only if they fire fixed ammo and/or you're firing explosive shells.

Unless state law says otherwise, a muzzleloading cannon is completely legal to own.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Telconi wrote:
But they do require permits and unneeded paperwork.

From what I'm reading, that's only if they fire fixed ammo and/or you're firing explosive shells.

Unless state law says otherwise, a muzzleloading cannon is completely legal to own.

Sure, but there's only one muzzle loading cannon I want, and it's in Malta

Telconi wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:From what I'm reading, that's only if they fire fixed ammo and/or you're firing explosive shells.

Unless state law says otherwise, a muzzleloading cannon is completely legal to own.

Sure, but there's only one muzzle loading cannon I want, and it's in Malta

I want to say 100-ton Armstrong...

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Telconi wrote:
But they do require permits and unneeded paperwork.

From what I'm reading, that's only if they fire fixed ammo and/or you're firing explosive shells.

Unless state law says otherwise, a muzzleloading cannon is completely legal to own.

Nah, I want a 155mm howitzer or even a 105 smoothbore cannon, breech loaded.

I don't know if this has been answered before but I have a question for gun control advocates, time and time again I've seen people on your side say "those who take medication for severe mental illness who shouldn't be able to own a gun", this sounds great on paper but my question is, how would this be enforced? What mental illness and what medication would prevent someone from buying a firearm? For example I take pills for having crippling anxiety, would I not be able to buy a gun? I mean it's not like my anxiety has made me want to harm others, and neither does my pills in fact they do the exact opposite, they calm me down and stop me from having a really bad panic attack. I ask this because I don't want people with mental health issues to be stigmatized any further and to be used to help push a political agenda.

Germanic Templars wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:From what I'm reading, that's only if they fire fixed ammo and/or you're firing explosive shells.

Unless state law says otherwise, a muzzleloading cannon is completely legal to own.

Nah, I want a 155mm howitzer or even a 105 smoothbore cannon, breech loaded.

You're in luck, 155mm uses a separate charge.

Cerinda wrote:I don't know if this has been answered before but I have a question for gun control advocates, time and time again I've seen people on your side say "those who take medication for severe mental illness who shouldn't be able to own a gun", this sounds great on paper but my question is, how would this be enforced? What mental illness and what medication would prevent someone from buying a firearm? For example I take pills for having crippling anxiety, would I not be able to buy a gun? I mean it's not like my anxiety has made me want to harm others, and neither does my pills in fact they do the exact opposite, they calm me down and stop me from having a really bad panic attack. I ask this because I don't want people with mental health issues to be stigmatized any further and to be used to help push a political agenda.

Well, schizophrenia would probably be a major one...

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Germanic Templars wrote:
Nah, I want a 155mm howitzer or even a 105 smoothbore cannon, breech loaded.

You're in luck, 155mm uses a separate charge.

But not a tank's gun which causes much concern. Or an anti-tank gun.

Germanic Templars wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:You're in luck, 155mm uses a separate charge.

But not a tank's gun which causes much concern. Or an anti-tank gun.

Who needs a tank when you can legally own AN IOWA-CLASS BATTLESHIP?