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

[haymarket]

It means Shall
Not
Be
Infringed

So all you do is repeat the same words as an explanation of what they mean!?!?!? Good thing you are NOT in the dictionary business. :doh:roll:

So when exactly is the right INFRINGED?

 

[American]

Everything you claim is ALWAYS under question without evidence to prove your claims.

You're changing the subject; something you do on a continuous basis.

 

[haymarket]

You're changing the subject; something you do on a continuous basis.

How do you figure I changed the subject when from the start I have asked you to provide evidence of your claims and you have not done so? The subject - your statements and the lack of evidence for them - has been the subject from the start today.

 

[Napoleon]

There's not much to disagree with. In order to disagree, you must first redefine 4 words. Shall, not, be, infringed.

You don't have to redefine it. You just have to use them in context. Shall not be infringed doesn't mean no regulation whatsoever. In fact the same amendment says that there should be regulation. And can it be infringed if a well regulated militia, which is the stated purpose of the amendment, is no longer necessary because we have a standing army and a national guard?

 

[jimbo]

You don't have to redefine it. You just have to use them in context. Infringement doesn't mean no regulation whatsoever. In fact the same amendment says that there should be regulation. And can they be infringed if a well regulated militia, which is the stated purpose of the amendment, is no longer necessary?

You do realize, do you not, that the first phrase is a prefatory, introductory, or explanatory phrase, whichever you choose, and that the latter phrase can and does stand alone.

Second, regulated does not mean that controlling laws must be passed. Willard's clocks of the same period were called regulators.

 

[American]

How do you figure I changed the subject when from the start I have asked you to provide evidence of your claims and you have not done so? The subject - your statements and the lack of evidence for them - has been the subject from the start today.

I agreed with one post, while you foolishly tried to extend to other areas. You have zero evidence, and I challenge you to prove your ridiculous allegation right here and now. I'm waiting.

 

[Napoleon]

You do realize, do you not, that the first phrase is a prefatory, introductory, or explanatory phrase, whichever you choose, and that the latter phrase can and does stand alone. Second, regulated does not mean that controlling laws must be passed. Willard's clocks of the same period were called regulators.

You're trying to introduce ambiguity where none exists. Gun regulation was ALOT stricter and far more invasive than it is today.

 

[jimbo]

You're trying to introduce ambiguity where none exists. Gun regulation was ALOT stricter and far more invasive than it is today.

I didn't know that. I'm aware that slaves were not allowed guns. But other than that, what restrictions were in place?

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

Every patriotic adult american who can ought to buy an Semi auto rifle with at least 5 30 round magazines just to send a message to the Bannerrhoid scumbags that our tax dollars fund. Show them that free Americans will buy what they want no matter how much it upsets nanny state assholes. Guys like him are a disgrace to our country and its sad he doesn't give a damn about our constitutional rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

Never let a tragedy go to waste...

Sadly, it is becoming clearer and clearer that more than a few big government control freaks actually welcome news of massacres so they can use the deaths to further their disgusting agendas

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

here is the problem. To HONEST people-common sense gun control would mean laws that specifically target criminals and criminal behavior. To people like you whose main goal is harassing lawful gun owners and pretending you all have actually done something without actually impacting criminals, common sense means burdensome hassles directed towards conservative gun owners. So as long as your agenda is not one of controlling criminals, we must reject your concepts of "common sense"

 

[MickeyW]

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.

Agreed.

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"

No kidding.

Never let a tragedy go to waste...

Exactly.

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.

Yes...boot the HLS. I told Bush it was a bad idea, I told Congress it was a bad idea....but they wouldn't listen.

 

[MickeyW]

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.

Disagree all you want to, doesn't make Jeh Johnson's statement, anymore relevant.

 

[MickeyW]

We agree that you're wrong.

Yes we do!

WE? Who is WE?

American and me.

 

[TurtleDude]

If we had our way, Mateen would not have been able to legally purchase firearms. But thanks to the Republicans....

Since the ISIS-inspired mass shooting in San Bernardino last fall, Democrats on Capitol Hill have seized on the watch-list issue as both an anti-terrorism policy and a politically savvy way to pressure Republicans to move on gun control. Legislation sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California would allow the attorney general to block sales of firearms or explosives to people as long as there is “a reasonable belief that such individual may use a firearm or explosive in connection with terrorism.”

“If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.”
The bill failed on a party-line vote in December. Democrats said they would try to attach the measure as an amendment to an appropriations bill on the Senate floor later this month, hoping the Orlando attack will jostle a few more Republicans running for reelection this fall. Hillary Clinton reiterated her support for the effort during a speech in Cleveland on Monday. “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked,” she said. “You shouldn’t be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show. And yes, if you’re too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.”

why don't you tell us that if the FBI could find NO REASON to charge this guy and the STATE could find NO REASON to deny this guy a SECURITY GUARD LICENSE why he should lose his constitutional rights

The Bannerrhoid movement never wants to tell us what should be the standard for losing one's constitutional rights

currently, its at least a probable cause finding-that being an INDICTMENT for a felony. That is the lowest standard allowed in the DEMOCRAT created, and passed GCA of 68. But now people like you want less than that. when does it stop?

well we know that answer=you want no one to be able to buy or possess a gun so why don't you stop the dishonesty and just cut to the chase

 

[TurtleDude]

Ah. It's the old "criminals will break laws anyway so why have laws in the first place" argument.

*sigh*

wrong-its all about this

criminals break laws that ban harmful behavior so your solution is to impose laws that only harass honest people who don't engage in harmful behavior

 

[MickeyW]

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

No ****!

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.

Right On soot!

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.

Fine............ don't own a gun....depend on the po-po .....:lamo

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.

I was out teaching kids to shoot and you didn't give American enough time for me to read this thread. Now that I have ....here I am....and there are many of us in..."We"

 

[TurtleDude]

"Homeland Security"

49 dead and 54 wounded is a 3 day weekend in Chicago and "Homeland Security is nowhere to be found. 10k a year due to day to day violence that has precisely zero to do with Background checks, Assault rifles, waiting periods, magazine capacity bans, gunshow loopholes or any of the other anti-gun ideological rhetoric. The head of DHS is nothing more than your garden variety anti-gun hack looking to exploit the occasional tragic incident to further an agenda.

no one in the USA has been slain illegally by any private citizens using a legally owned assault rifle in US history.

 

[TurtleDude]

You don't have to redefine it. You just have to use them in context. Shall not be infringed doesn't mean no regulation whatsoever. In fact the same amendment says that there should be regulation. And can it be infringed if a well regulated militia, which is the stated purpose of the amendment, is no longer necessary because we have a standing army and a national guard?

as to the federal government it does. The federal government was never given any power to regulate small arms owned privately. Sorry-Commerce among the states is not a valid claim that such powers exist. The founders saw the states as the source of certain limited regulations on the USE of firearms

 

[TurtleDude]

You're trying to introduce ambiguity where none exists. Gun regulation was ALOT stricter and far more invasive than it is today.

That's complete crap. and the only regulations were state imposed. You could buy guns trough the USA mail until 1968 for example

 

[MickeyW]

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.

Big 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.

Except as I see it, your opinion isn't legitimate and has no merit.

We go through this every thread!

 

[VanceMack]

no one in the USA has been slain illegally by any private citizens using a legally owned assault rifle in US history.

I posted NYPD Chief Kelly's direct comments...of the 1400 bullets fired in one year only THREE came from a rifle of ANY kind.

The anti-gun left is purely agenda driven. Whats sad is seeing gun owners falling into the emotional appeals. The rabid left has learned...yell scream and call names and many people will shrink, wince, and cave. Very sad.

 

[MickeyW]

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.

Sensible gun control to liberals is NONSENSE!

There is no reason to have registration on a tool that people own. It's none of your business what I own and it's none of the government's business what I own.

Screw your insurance...I loathe insurance companies! They are right up their with the other two biggest crooks in the country...Big Pharma and Heath Care.

Training is a good thing........however..............

Gun shows are primarily full of gun dealers that have FFL licenses and have to do background checks on all sales....same for online. I deal with many online dealers, all over the USA and no one would ever ships me a gun directly. They are sent to a licensed FFL dealer of my choice and the BGC is done! So...WTF are you talking about????

 

[VanceMack]

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.

Considering the vast majority of those 'mass shootings' are committed by gang bangers, when is the rabid left going to act responsibly and call for mandatory minimum sentencing for violent crimes involving weapons?

 

[TurtleDude]

I posted NYPD Chief Kelly's direct comments...of the 1400 bullets fired in one year only THREE came from a rifle of ANY kind.

The anti-gun left is purely agenda driven. Whats sad is seeing gun owners falling into the emotional appeals. The rabid left has learned...yell scream and call names and many people will shrink, wince, and cave. Very sad.

Thirty years ago, the leaders of the far left side of the Bannerrhoid movement realized that their 25 year jihad against handgun ownership was failing. So the leader of this part of the Bannerrhoid movement, Josh Sugarmann (who had been booted from the Brady organization for being too open about wanting to ban all handguns) sent out a position paper to leftwing politicians and their toadies in the press-telling them to use all the ultra-violent movies popular back then that featured machine gun violence and pretend that semi auto rifles were no different than the stuff "RAMBO" or SCARFACE or Chuck Norris's Characters used to lay waste to numerous enemy. Since then the Bannerrrhoid movement has been focusing its foul attention on firearms that have little criminal history and are clearly protected by the 2A under EVERY case that has come before the USSC

its disgusting but many Democrats don't care because they see gun rights as something that people who don't buy into their left wing agenda cherish