It is hard for to believe that some in Washington think that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would decrease violent crime. That would be like declaring a national holiday for criminals.
Nancy Pelosi recently said in a speech that "if we had a Democrat as President they would declare a state of national emergency to confiscate legally owned guns."
You know criminals don't keep legally owned guns, only law-abiding citizens do. If any President were so stupid to attempt to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens this country would experience civil unrest not seen since the Civil War.
People are passionate about hunting, sport and target shooting, but are even more passionate about being able to protect their home, their family and themselves. Not all of us are worth millions and can afford the best in home security systems and walk around with armed bodyguards. Maybe Mrs. Pelosi will give up all of that security in exchange for a whistle? But I don't think that will happen.
But as most people know both houses of Congress for years have been referred to as the Millionaires Club. When President Trump was elected it was like people expected him to serve for free and he did. But why stop there, if those in Congress truly want to serve their country why don't they serve for free since some are worth in the hundreds of millions. But unlike President Trump it seems as they want their country to serve them. They are all so out of touch with the common Americans that they have no idea of the struggles we face.
I have seen polls lately of should illegal aliens be able to draw social security? That should not even be a question. They didn't contribute to it and what part of illegal do some people not understand? If anything like that ever became law I can't even begin to comprehend the influx of elderly illegals that would be pouring across the borders into a country already so far in debt they can't see light at the end of the tunnel. But if you are independently wealthy it really don't create a problem for you.
It is time we had a little common sense brought into all of our elected officials. I also believe that we should have term limits in both houses of Congress instead of lifetime politicians who get reelected based solely on name recognition.
* * *
Nancy Pelosi was referring to President Trump declaring a national emergency to build his wall. It was said with tongue in cheek so to speak last month, on or around Feb. 14, giving examples that if Trump could declare a national emergency to build a wall a Democratic president could do the same on issues they felt were compelling. The gun issue was just one example. Another was climate change, and another was income inequality.
Don't get so upset. No one's gonna take yours or anyone's precious guns away. Relax.
* * *
In your letter you attribute a quote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That statement, asserted as verbatim by way of quotation marks, is fabricated.
Here is the actual statement made by Speaker Pelosi which most resembles the false quote you provide, "Let's talk about today: the one-year anniversary of [the Parkland School shooting] another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That's a national emergency. Why don't you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic President can do that."
Beyond the simple made up quote, there's also the issue of failure to understand the meaning behind what was actually said. You'll see that Pelosi's comment was not really a statement about gun control, but rather her offering an example of how problematic it is to allow the President to abuse the powers of an emergency declaration.
Read how she continued the comment, "A Democratic President can declare emergencies as well, so the precedent that the President is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans."
This is a sentiment shared by many on both sides of the aisle. Your Republican Senator Lamar Alexander said of the issue, "There has never been an instance where a President of the United States has asked for funding, Congress refused it, and the President then had used the National Emergency Act to justify the funding anyway. There is no limit to the imagination of what the next left-wing President could do to ham this country." Alexander also called Trump's maneuver "unwise" and a budding "constitutional crisis."
A vote in the Senate on this very matter has been forced and is upcoming. Mitch McConnell won't be able to sit on this particular House bill. By the media's count there are already enough Republicans against the declaration to have it pass. A veto has even been promised by the President. But nevertheless this stands as yet another unsolvable contradiction for small-government advocates' support for a President that regularly crosses the constitutional boundries of executive power. Your letter, Mr. Gamble, gives one the impression that you too fall into this camp. I suspect government overreach and regulation, eminent domain, and unconstitutional government spending are all bad words to you, yet for the Wall we see a Republican President engaged in exactly that. I understand your concern of the issues you raise, sir. But please do not make up words to vilify your opponent. It only weakens your argument. Instead, I urge you to make sure your own house is in order, lest you empower those you fear most.
* * *
Well once again Ms. Washington, you carry the liberal tune and further the lie about gun control. The repetition of the line “nobody wants to take your guns” has become such an overused lie that it is no longer remotely believable.
Numerous Democrats in Congress and several candidates for President have made it quite clear that they want to do exactly that. Bills have been filed by Pelosi et.al. to outlaw weapons in use for over 100 years, i.e. semi-automatic weapons. This ban includes language for “confiscation” of the outlawed weapons.
Once again the Constitution is completely ignored by them in their zeal to disarm the American people.