• 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!

Gun Violence a Homeland Security Problem [W:20]

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well, the snowball's off the hill and here it comes:

Jeh Johnson: Gun Violence Has Become A Matter Of Homeland Security

“I believe that meaningful, responsible gun control is part of homeland security.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson stipulated Tuesday that responsible homeland security entails passing meaningful gun control reforms.

“I believe that meaningful, responsible gun control is part of homeland security and it’s something we have to address,” Johnson said in an interview with CBS “This Morning,” following Sunday’s shooting at an Orlando gay nightclub that left 50 people dead, including the shooter, and 43 others injured.
Democrats are renewing calls to bar people on the terrorism watch list from purchasing weapons of war, such as the AR-15 used in the massacre. The Orlando gunman had also once been on a terrorist watch list.

The assault weapons ban is getting closer and closer, and it really is a shame that the do nothing congress is ushering it in.

Another point made in the news, is the poor guy that owned the supplying gun store has had to come out in public and apologize that his store got picked. I think that responsible gun store owners are going to be on the vanguard of new gun controls. They're going to have to be.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Anyone in charge of the department of homeland security can kiss my ass.
 

Bootlace

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
597
Reaction score
299
Location
So cal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I own a few ar-15s and if there ever were a day I would consider parting with them, today damn sure isn't it.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, the snowball's off the hill and here it comes:

Jeh Johnson: Gun Violence Has Become A Matter Of Homeland Security

“I believe that meaningful, responsible gun control is part of homeland security.”



The assault weapons ban is getting closer and closer, and it really is a shame that the do nothing congress is ushering it in.

Another point made in the news, is the poor guy that owned the supplying gun store has had to come out in public and apologize that his store got picked. I think that responsible gun store owners are going to be on the vanguard of new gun controls. They're going to have to be.

they have no power to change laws and assault weapons are already banned in the US for anything after 1986.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
they have no power to change laws and assault weapons are already banned in the US for anything after 1986.

Well, congress does have power to change laws - and so do people, and assault weapons are not banned. But they will be. The tide is certainly turning. The NRA, bless their hearts are doing everything they can to shoot holes in their own / your boat; they've come out publicly and blamed Obama.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
15,856
Reaction score
8,987
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Idiot bureaucrats attempting to expand their empires.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I own a few ar-15s and if there ever were a day I would consider parting with them, today damn sure isn't it.

Nobody is going to rush into your home and take your guns away. They're just going to stop selling them, and if one of your's is ever used in a crime, it'll go away too.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
22,291
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
“I believe that meaningful, responsible gun control is part of homeland security.”

The assault weapons ban is getting closer and closer, and it really is a shame that the do nothing congress is ushering it in.

Another point made in the news, is the poor guy that owned the supplying gun store has had to come out in public and apologize that his store got picked. I think that responsible gun store owners are going to be on the vanguard of new gun controls. They're going to have to be.

I have three things to say:

1. Homeland Security (our probable precursor to an American Gestapo) is a political farce, and it's current head can kiss my ass.

2. American's need access to the same level of basic firearm that the common infantry soldier is normally assigned. That meets both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.

3. I doubt gun shop owners are going to cut back on any weapon still legally allowed for sale and which will probably fly off the shelves after this kind of gun control public statement. They sell guns for the profit, or didn't you realize this?
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Idiot bureaucrats attempting to expand their empires.

Idiot bureaucrats are here by demand. GW Bush started Homeland Security, and homeland security is their job, so the radical second amendment crowd has been working against your interests from the outset. These ARs and AK etc are now national issue that we have to deal with, and the experts and law makers are going to deal with it because folks in your corner won't.

You get what you pay for in this world.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Sorry most can't speak English .:lamo

Ok, I can work with that.

Cualquier persona a cargo del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional puede besarme el culo.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have three things to say:

1. Homeland Security (our probable precursor to an American Gestapo) is a political farce, and it's current head can kiss my ass.

2. American's need access to the same level of weaponry any basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned. That meets both the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.

3. I doubt gun shop owners are going to cut back on any weapon still legally allowed for sale and will probably fly off the shelves after this kind of gun control public statement. They sell guns for the profit, or didn't you realize this?

Well, take your Homeland Security complaint to your compadre GW Bush, he started it and everybody on the right thought it was a great idea. So, now it isn't? Homeland Security is doing its job and now they're no good?

American has no need to access military weaponry until there's a call for arms. Then there'll be plenty. There have been people who had access to what "basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned", and look what's happened. So that argument goes out the window. Such access "to basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned" has caused a homeland security problem...

We have to change that. Such access to "basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned" is now a weapon of "terrorism"...

You can doubt what gun shop owners are going to do about this all you want: but they have to stay in business, and if they have to dislodge a few items form their inventory to stay in business and be "patriotic", what do think they're gonna do?
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, congress does have power to change laws - and so do people, and assault weapons are not banned. But they will be. The tide is certainly turning. The NRA, bless their hearts are doing everything they can to shoot holes in their own / your boat; they've come out publicly and blamed Obama.

so your argument about HLS is bunk since they have no control over laws.

Any assault weapon that was manufactured after May 1986 is illegal to own in the US.
3.The machine gun you wish to acquire must have been manufactured on or before May 19, 1986.
it also requires special licensing a fully FBI back ground check and you must live in a state that allows it.

An assault rifle is a weapon that has a selector on it that allows the gun to fire either single, burst or full auto.
It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode. definition ATF.

the AR15 is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle on the market. also it will do nothing to stop shootings.
criminals or people intent on doing this kind of thing do not care what you attempt to ban or take away.

you lack of addressing this argument pretty much says that truth of the matter.

how will banning a gun (that is will still be out there) stop a criminal intent on doing this. please answer the question with something reasonable.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, take your Homeland Security complaint to your compadre GW Bush, he started it and everybody on the right thought it was a great idea. So, now it isn't? Homeland Security is doing its job and now they're no good?

yep it is a good idea that doesn't mean that the current head isn't an idiot.

American has no need to access military weaponry until there's a call for arms. Then there'll be plenty. There have been people who had access to what "basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned", and look what's happened. So that argument goes out the window. Such access "to basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned" has caused a homeland security problem...

yep 99% of gun owners have no issues with it at all and in fact guns save more lives than they take. this is pretty much proven fact by the FBI and other
studies even those conducted by anti-gun lobbyists.

We have to change that. Such access to "basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned" is now a weapon of terrorism"...

appeal to emotion fallacy is not an argument. a gun is an inanimate object.

You can doubt what gun shop owners are going to do about this all you want: but they have to stay in business, and if they have to dislodge a few items form their inventory to stay in business and be "patriotic", what do think they're gonna do?

since that would be unpatriotic (another appeal to emotion fallacy)
they will sell the items that are in demand.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Such access "to basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned" has caused a homeland security problem...

It has? Is that why the vast majority of the owners of AR-15's or any gun whatsoever are not criminals?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,838
Reaction score
22,291
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, take your Homeland Security complaint to your compadre GW Bush, he started it and everybody on the right thought it was a great idea. So, now it isn't? Homeland Security is doing its job and now they're no good?

Neither George Bush Sr. nor George Bush Jr. are my "compadre." I voted against both of them each time they ran.

I never thought the creation of "Homeland Security" was a good idea and I protested it, the Patriot Act, AND the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan back in the day.

American has no need to access military weaponry until there's a call for arms. Then there'll be plenty. There have been people who had access to what "basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned", and look what's happened. So that argument goes out the window. Such access "to basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned" has caused a homeland security problem...

American's have a NEED for military weapons because the "call to arms" may be a rebellion against the central government. You mistake my position if you think the Right guaranteed by the 2A only applies to foreign threats.

We have to change that. Such access to "basic firearm the common infantry soldier is normally assigned" is now a weapon of "terrorism"...

You can doubt what gun shop owners are going to do about this all you want: but they have to stay in business, and if they have to dislodge a few items form their inventory to stay in business and be "patriotic", what do think they're gonna do?

That appeal to emotion does not fly...otherwise by extension then all of our military forces must thus be labeled "terrorists." BTW, that's exactly how they are perceived elsewhere in the world.

As for your last comment? When has such an "ideal" stopped gun sales in the past? :roll:

Stop with all the emotionally alarmist rhetoric. Disarming the public is NOT in the best interests of the American people.
 
Last edited:

SMTA

Ketsu no Anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
35,267
Reaction score
8,922
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, the snowball's off the hill and here it comes:

Jeh Johnson: Gun Violence Has Become A Matter Of Homeland Security

“I believe that meaningful, responsible gun control is part of homeland security.”



The assault weapons ban is getting closer and closer, and it really is a shame that the do nothing congress is ushering it in.

Another point made in the news, is the poor guy that owned the supplying gun store has had to come out in public and apologize that his store got picked. I think that responsible gun store owners are going to be on the vanguard of new gun controls. They're going to have to be.

Good for you - don't let a good tragedy go to waste.

Shame that children were not involved to give you an extra emotional boost for your anti gun message.

That is exactly what you people do.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
so your argument about HLS is bunk since they have no control over laws.

Any assault weapon that was manufactured after May 1986 is illegal to own in the US.
3.The machine gun you wish to acquire must have been manufactured on or before May 19, 1986.
it also requires special licensing a fully FBI back ground check and you must live in a state that allows it.

An assault rifle is a weapon that has a selector on it that allows the gun to fire either single, burst or full auto.
It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode. definition ATF.

the AR15 is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle on the market. also it will do nothing to stop shootings.
criminals or people intent on doing this kind of thing do not care what you attempt to ban or take away.

you lack of addressing this argument pretty much says that truth of the matter.

how will banning a gun (that is will still be out there) stop a criminal intent on doing this. please answer the question with something reasonable.

Homeland security has control over homeland security policy, and the government goes along with that policy. That's why we have Homeland Security, remember?

The ARs that are being sold, like the thing that the shooter just got, are newly minted. The assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset under GW Bush.

Don't try and lecture me on assault weapons: that's a non sequitur. The AR is a military design weapon: it is made to mow down large numbers of people in a few seconds or minutes: that's why it was chosen be the shooter, in Orlando, Michigan, San Bernadino, Aurora, Sandy Hook, that's why those guys in France chose the European versions as well.

I AM addressing that argument. THAT'S what the thread is about. You can't get around it, so you have a big problem with it.

They were banned before and we didn't have 50 or 100 people getting killed in a wack. So that's what's going to happen again.

Bombs are another problem, but we have to deal with them one at a time.
 

Casca XV

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
7,123
Reaction score
1,415
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Idiot bureaucrats are here by demand. GW Bush started Homeland Security, and homeland security is their job, so the radical second amendment crowd has been working against your interests from the outset. These ARs and AK etc are now national issue that we have to deal with, and the experts and law makers are going to deal with it because folks in your corner won't.

You get what you pay for in this world.

Yes, Bush started the Patriot Act and Homeland Security but there is no evidence he ever used either for any purpose but to fight Terrorist. Obama renewed and expanded to power of the Patriot Act. He and the Clintons have long histories of using Govt power including the Patriot Act against their political opponents.
 

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
49,186
Reaction score
29,408
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Moderator's Warning:
The tone in this thread is already starting to get out of hand. Keep yourself in check or you will be infracted and removed from another gun thread.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, congress does have power to change laws - and so do people, and assault weapons are not banned. But they will be. The tide is certainly turning. The NRA, bless their hearts are doing everything they can to shoot holes in their own / your boat; they've come out publicly and blamed Obama.

Congress doesn't have the power to change the Constitution without 2/3rds of the states legislatures agreeing with them.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Homeland security has control over homeland security policy, and the government goes along with that policy. That's why we have Homeland Security, remember?
they cannot change laws that is the job of congress. they have no authority over who owns what gun.

The ARs that are being sold, like the thing that the shooter just got, are newly minted. The assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset under GW Bush.
which is not an assault rifle.

Don't try and lecture me on assault weapons: that's a non sequitur.
Well when you don't know what you are talking about then someone has to educate you or at least try.
you issue is that you don't want to be educated on the subject because that takes away from all your appeals to emotion.

The AR is a military design weapon: it is made to mow down large numbers of people in a few seconds or minutes: that's why it was chosen be the shooter, in Orlando, Michigan, San Bernadino, AuroraI , Sandy Hook, that's why those guys in France chose the European versions as well.

That goes for any semi-automatic weapon. so what is your excuse now? the fact is that 99% of population doesn't.

I AM addressing that argument. THAT'S what the thread is about. You can't get around it, so you have a big problem with it.

appeal to emotion arguments is not addressing the argument it is in fact a logical fallacy, and no you can't address the argument and you haven't yet.
how would banning this gun have stopped him since the only people that would care about your ban are people that are not going to use it in the way he did?

They were banned before and we didn't have 50 or 100 people getting killed in a wack. So that's what's going to happen again.
sure we did. Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work?


Bombs are another problem, but we have to deal with them one at a time.

they can cause even more wide spread damage. so instead of guns they will resort to bombs.
the fact is nothing you can do will stop them from achieving their end goal. this is an argument that you have
yet to address and frankly refuse to because it pretty much shuts your anti-gun emo down.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes, Bush started the Patriot Act and Homeland Security but there is no evidence he ever used either for any purpose but to fight Terrorist. Obama renewed and expanded to power of the Patriot Act. He and the Clintons have long histories of using Govt power including the Patriot Act against their political opponents.

That's getting way off track, so I'm not going to address it. The point is - Homeland Security was initiated in order to protect this country from terrorist threats. Now they are exercising their authoritative opinion on domestic terrorism, and they say that assault weapons are a terrorist security issue and the proof bears that out.

So, since it's been determined to BE a security issue, how can you disagree with that? A terrorist with an AR15 is a national threat - full stop.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Congress doesn't have the power to change the Constitution without 2/3rds of the states legislatures agreeing with them.

Who said "change the constitution"? Not me...
 
Top Bottom