I think I'm the only one to mention the state of emergency so I think he was talking about my post.
The immigration/ wall/ bump stocks isn't relevant to the conversation. Without preaching politics, I never offered my opinion on that. My point is that twice the President has used other means to circumvent the check and balance system recently. Once by going around every branch, as well as the BATF with bump stocks because he knew nothing would pass. And again by the state of emergency for funding because the house wouldn't pass that one. My opinion on the two subhects doesn't matter at all, my opinion of the means used is relevant however. The point was that having the senate, or even when we had both, that the President (red, blue, bull moose whatever color Teddy chose for that one, ... doesn't matter) isn't supposed to go unchecked or circumvent the system. That's the entire premise of our system. He blatantly banned and made illegal bump stocks that were legal and declared so by the governing body, by signing a paper. He set a precedent that Obama/Clinton etc would love to have followed. They knew that the other branches would check them as would the supreme court, which is the way it's supposed to work. Again, what if Clinton's awb (especially mags) had been done the way Trump did bump stocks? Immigration nor 2A was the point. The point is that the president isn't supposed to single handedly rule by declarations and signing papers. And if not met before the next president (or next or eventually) it will absolutely affect our rights. What if Harris/Cortez/ or whoever were to get elected and follow suit? It's bad enough that they may well have all three branches. But if allowed to go around both branches and the court? It's relevant to this thread because his precedent is exactly why none of us know if lasers/ white tank tops or funny hats will be targeted by a signature. I'm vehemently against chewing gum, soda , and Crocs.....I wouldn't agree with an executive order against them because eventually a President would find something that I did like.
It's no longer "that will never pass in the house/ senate" twice recently he has shown clearly that doesn't matter. Even if I agree on both of them, condoning circumventing the system to get what we want is foolish and will bite us back very soon I'm afraid.
Anyway sorry for the length of the post, but i felt clarifying might get us back on topic. Banning lasers and how it's not as silly or unlikely an idea as it was a before the recent things.