• 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!

Jeh Johnson: Gun control is now a matter of homeland security

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Jeh Johnson: Gun control is now a matter of homeland security - CBS News
Just days after the massacre in an Orlando nightclub left 49 people dead and 53 wounded, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Tuesday said that gun control is now a critical element of protecting the U.S. homeland and keeping Americans safe."We have to face the fact that meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security," Johnson said in an interview on "CBS This Morning." "We need to do something to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get a gun in this country."
On the issue of people on the no-fly list and various other lists being able to purchase a weapon in the U.S., Johnson said, "I believe that that's something that has to be addressed."

Constitutional Rights are merely obstacles to the controlled, planned progressive future, looks like they have their excuse to remove one.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
For some reason, in that interview, he seems disappointed that after Sandy Hook, action wasn't taken on banning weapons.

Almost like "Dang! I thought if we killed kids it would make changes occur"

Never let a tragedy go to waste...
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What always strikes me about liberals response to mass shootings is that they know the solution .5 seconds after the mass shooting happened. What's the solution? GUN CONTROL! There is no looking over the case and determining the variables in play, just GUN CONTROL! What's hilarious about it is that many times the people that do the mass shootings would have already been barred from having guns from past gun control efforts by liberals.

And really, can we just eliminate home land security already? All the ****ing agency seems to do is violate the peoples rights.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,840
Reaction score
35,235
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,369
Reaction score
29,921
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you take out the word "gun" and replace it with "Muslim", you can't tell the difference between Trump and these clowns.


What if (and, this is just a thought), every single problem we faced wasn't solved by abusing our Constitutional rights?

The Constitution was authored and ratified by white, rich, inbred, slave-owning racists, dontcha know? :roll: Consequently, loathing and ignoring the Constitution is a progressive thing to do.
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From your linked article:

"We need to do something to minimize the opportunity for terrorists to get a gun in this country." On the issue of people on the no-fly list and various other lists being able to purchase a weapon in the U.S., Johnson said, "I believe that that's something that has to be addressed."

I don't thoroughly disagree with him.

Islamic terrorists' access to firearms should be addressed and the terror "no fly list" isn't the worst place to start.

They could begin by addressing the fact that the "no fly list" itself is an absolute travesty of justice and a feel-good farce.

Build a better "no fly list" (increase the degree of scrutiny necessary to get names on the list, build a system for immediately informing those whose names are placed on the list, provide for an easy and unobtrusive way for people to dispute being put on the list, provide people whose names are placed on the list with all of the evidence supporting the action, place the onus and expense for justifying a name being put on the list on government rather than declaring people "guilty" and then leaving it to them to fight to get their names off, get false positives close to zero) and then maybe it makes sense to talk about using that list to limit peoples' Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as well as their Constitutional right to free movement.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,840
Reaction score
35,235
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Constitution was authored and ratified by white, rich, inbred, slave-owning racists, dontcha know? :roll: Consequently, loathing and ignoring the Constitution is a progressive thing to do.

Slavery is Freedom. Remember - Big Brother is Watching.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jeh Johnson: Gun control is now a matter of homeland security - CBS News


Constitutional Rights are merely obstacles to the controlled, planned progressive future, looks like they have their excuse to remove one.

Except that the issue of what constitutes CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS is something we wildly disagree about when it comes to guns. So the cheap shot you just took - that people who want gun control want "to remove one" - is simply not part of any serious discussion as it perverts and distorts what is really being considered.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Constitution was authored and ratified by white, rich, inbred, slave-owning racists, dontcha know? :roll: Consequently, loathing and ignoring the Constitution is a progressive thing to do.

INBRED????? Please document that claim.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,369
Reaction score
29,921
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Except that the issue of what constitutes CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS is something we wildly disagree about when it comes to guns. So the cheap shot you just took - that people who want gun control want "to remove one" - is simply not part of any serious discussion as it perverts and distorts what is really being considered.

We agree that you're wrong.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,369
Reaction score
29,921
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WE? Who is WE?

We've had these discussions before, and you've had this laid out for you. We can't keep indulging your forgetfulness.
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Except that the issue of what constitutes CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS is something we wildly disagree about when it comes to guns.

Then that's really something that needs to be addressed by the SCOTUS or the constitutional amendment process.

It isn't the place of executive appointees to dictate how rights are to be interpreted and then decide which rights are to be extended to whom.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Then that's really something that needs to be addressed by the SCOTUS or the constitutional amendment process.

It isn't the place of executive appointees to dictate how rights are to be interpreted and then decide which rights are to be extended to whom.

The Constitution provides no such power to the Supreme Court either. What our rights mean and their exercise is a subject for all of us as Americans.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We've had these discussions before, and you've had this laid out for you. We can't keep indulging your forgetfulness.

So you are unable to identify this group of WE other than you trying to enlarge and engrandize your own personal opinion by making yourself all puffed up and invoking the backing of the crowd.

Got it.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Except that the issue of what constitutes CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS is something we wildly disagree about when it comes to guns. So the cheap shot you just took - that people who want gun control want "to remove one" - is simply not part of any serious discussion as it perverts and distorts what is really being considered.

Oh spare us the bull**** mmkay? Your view of what a right is, and what a Right is by the Constitution are completely opposite. The Constitution was written as a protection of Natural Rights, that idea is alien to you and those like Mr. Johnston, so having a discussion about rights with you is quite a challenge.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh spare us the bull**** mmkay? Your view of what a right is, and what a Right is by the Constitution are completely opposite. The Constitution was written as a protection of Natural Rights, that idea is alien to you and those like Mr. Johnston, so having a discussion about rights with you is quite a challenge.

There are no such things as natural rights to protect. If you believe there are - simply provide verifiable evidence of that claim.

There is no reason for you to insult me by characterizing my post as BS merely because we have a legitimate difference of opinion.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Jeh Johnson: Gun control is now a matter of homeland security - CBS News


Constitutional Rights are merely obstacles to the controlled, planned progressive future, looks like they have their excuse to remove one.

A "mass shooting" is defined as one in which four or more people are shot (though not necessarily killed). In 2015, there were 372 mass shootings. In 2015, there were 220 days in which there were at least one mass shootings, and only 145 days without any mass shootings at all. In other words, days WITH mass shootings are now the NORM for life in America.

Really, what does it take for the Right to see that maybe, just maybe it's time for sensible gun control? I mean, how is it that the NRA actually opposes keeping people on the "no-fly" list to be prevented from legally purchasing firearms??? What is the possible sense in that?

The great majority of us on the Left do NOT want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The only people claiming otherwise are conservative pundits and shills for gun manufacturers. What we DO want is sensible gun control to make it much more difficult for psychopaths, violent ex-felons, domestic abusers, drug dealers, terrorists (and their sympathizers), and the mentally-ill to have easy access to firearms...and to give law enforcement the tools it needs to go after gun smugglers, especially those who smuggle up to a quarter million firearms from America into Mexico each and every year.

Jeh Johnson is right - this IS a matter of national security, because the more mass shootings we have, the more it affects the national fabric that binds our nation together, and it affects us in many, many ways. For instance, "school lockdowns due to an armed threat or active shooter in the vicinity" hardly ever make more than the local news now and hardly ever make national news...whereas in other nations, such are almost unheard of. While there are mass shootings in other first-world nations, such are much, much rarer than here in America.

It is long past time for common-sense gun control in the forms of background checks for all sales (including at gun shows and online), registration for all firearms, required liability insurance for firearm ownership, and - every bit as important - required safety training for firearm ownership.

We can either do the above, and begin the long, slow process of making our streets safer...or we can continue allowing mass shootings to be the norm of daily life in America, rather than the very rare exception to the rule as in every other first-world nation on the planet.
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Constitution provides no such power to the Supreme Court either.

WTF?

U.S. Constitution Art. III § II said:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...

The interpretation of law arising from the Constitutional is very much within the purview of the SCOTUS.

It's the Judicial branch's very first enumerated power.

What our rights mean and their exercise is a subject for all of us as Americans.

Certainly.

And when it comes to our most fundamental rights as enumerated in the Constitution a mechanism has been provided for us to express those views - the amendment process.

We've done it seventeen times (not counting the ratification of the original ten amendments) since the Constitution has been adopted.

If we, the people, believe that a more restrictive or permissive interpretation of the Constitution is necessary, or that the Constitution itself needs to be changed, we have the means to impose our interpretation on ourselves and on government.
 
Last edited:

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are no such things as natural rights to protect.
Thus my point is proven. Thank you and have a nice day/

If you believe there are - simply provide verifiable evidence of that claim.

There is no reason for you to insult me by characterizing my post as BS merely because we have a legitimate difference of opinion.
No, you claim "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" while at the same time utterly denying the very foundation of said rights, thus negating you as an honest debater of the matter.

Be honest, you believe in privileges, not Rights. Rights confer no obligation on another for you to exercise and the Government should be involved with a Natural Right as LITTLE as possible. You're view of "rights" is granted privileges from a benevolent government.
 
Top Bottom