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

[MickeyW]

All white men within a certain age range were legally required to muster twice annually with their own musket or a pistol if you served in the capacity of a dragoon for inspection, regustration, and training. At first the individual States were tasked with defining and managing the details of regulation. Failure to appear for muster resulted in a fine. All white men were subject to home inspection at any time so the State could itemize who owned what gun(s), where, what condition they were in, and if the legally mandated guns were not present or in poor condition you were subject to a fine.
Blacks, free or slave, were not permitted to own firearms and neither was anyone else who was judged to be disloyal to the State or engaged in an act of rebellion. Conceal carry? Forget it. Illegal. Open carry? In some places but mostly illegal. For the most part, your gun stayed home and in good condition waiting for you to pick it up and fight for the nation when called upon. Exceptions for hunting. Back then, public safety and national security were placed ahead of individual liberty.

A person was required to maintain his firearm for the purposes of being ready to fight, at a moments notice...and........that the government could absolutely depend on him w/o fail. Home inspection was for that reason(makes sense). Legally mandated guns are those that the govt. required a person to own(makes sense).

The citizen was not restricted to just those firearms and could have any personal arm that they desired...and did....and carried them regularly for self defense against Indians, roustabouts or hoodlums.
Openly too...why conceal them?(makes no sense).

Yes, they were required to have guns approved by the govt. for a dependable fighting unit. Thus..inspections. Other arms for personal use, were not subject to inspection.

And....you need to specify in your second paragraph the part where you stopped referring to slaves and went back to non slaves. It's convoluted and muddled.

 

[TurtleDude]

A person was required to maintain his firearm for the purposes of being ready to fight, at a moments notice...and........that the government could absolutely depend on him w/o fail. Home inspection was for that reason(makes sense). Legally mandated guns are those that the govt. required a person to own(makes sense).

The citizen was not restricted to just those firearms and could have any personal arm that they desired...and did....and carried them regularly for self defense against Indians, roustabouts or hoodlums.
Openly too...why conceal them?(makes no sense).

Yes, they were required to have guns approved by the govt. for a dependable fighting unit. Thus..inspections. Other arms for personal use, were not subject to inspection.

And....you need to specify in your second paragraph the part where you stopped referring to slaves and went back to non slaves. It's convoluted and muddled.

two points for those who still spew the no-longer viable militia requirement nonsense

in the 1700s a militia was much like that depicted in "The Last of the Mohicans". temporary soldiers who normally were farmers or shopkeepers. People who joined the militia to serve as a stand alone group or as an adjunct to the regular army when an emergency required it. These people were not "well regulated" 24/7 because most of the time they were eking out a living not practicing bayonet drill or volley firing with their 4000 closest friends. So anyone who claims that the "right to keep and bear" arms only vested AFTER they actually joined a well regulated (i.e. an active militia that had elected officers and had a mission) is clueless

even more telling is the fact that it is undeniable that the founders intended the second to recognize a right the founders believed was endowed to all free men completely separate from government. Now, if a right is guaranteed and that right was seen as existing prior to or without government, how can anyone argue that exercising that right requires membership in a government sponsored institution ?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Except that the issue of what constitutes CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS is something we wildly disagree about when it comes to guns.

There is sound factual basis supporting that the Constitution protects at a minimum the right to have a gun at home suitable for self defense, and probably also a right to carry guns for self defense when people go about in public.

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.

I've had years of experience fighting the gun control movement, and I find that they do want to seriously violate people's Constitutional gun rights, and quite often they enjoy violating people's rights for no reason.

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

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes is the philosophical underpinning of our modern legal system.

It recognizes that people have a natural right to defend themselves while under attack if an agent of the government is not present to provide that defense.

So when exactly is the right INFRINGED?

How about when a law cannot pass muster with strict scrutiny?

We use strict scrutiny to determine when it is OK for laws to impact other fundamental rights.

There is no need to rewrite the Second Amendment. Government has all the power they need to enact reasonable controls and restrictions while still preserving the basic right.

Yes, but....

The gun control movement is not after reasonable controls. They want outrageous violations of our Constitutional rights.

I agree that any gun law that would actually improve public safety would pass muster with strict scrutiny, provided that it was narrowly tailored to focus on improving public safety.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

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.

The term "well regulated militia" meant that the militia in question had trained to the degree that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.

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?

It can't. The people who wrote the Constitution were of the opinion that the militia was always necessary, and they wanted the militia to be as strong as possible so that it would be the standing army that would be unnecessary.

All white men within a certain age range were legally required to muster twice annually with their own musket or a pistol if you served in the capacity of a dragoon for inspection, regustration, and training. At first the individual States were tasked with defining and managing the details of regulation. Failure to appear for muster resulted in a fine. All white men were subject to home inspection at any time so the State could itemize who owned what gun(s), where, what condition they were in, and if the legally mandated guns were not present or in poor condition you were subject to a fine.

That refers to militia weapons that militiamen were supposed to possess.

It didn't prevent militiamen from having personal guns in addition to their required militia weapons, and it didn't prevent non-militiamen from having personal guns.

Open carry? In some places but mostly illegal. For the most part, your gun stayed home and in good condition waiting for you to pick it up and fight for the nation when called upon. Exceptions for hunting.

There was a clear right to keep guns at home suitable for self defense. Probably also a right to carry guns in public suitable for self defense.

Back then, public safety and national security were placed ahead of individual liberty.

Strange all those rights in the Constitution protecting individual liberty above all else.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

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?

People who are put on the no-fly list are not allowed to challenge it if they are innocent, and are not even allowed to know why they have been put on the list.

Completely unacceptable to use that list to prevent people from buying weapons.

background checks for all sales (including at gun shows and online),

Unfortunately the background check system is being used to block people who shouldn't be blocked. Not acceptable to make it universal until such time as the current system is reformed and Barack Obama is prosecuted in federal court for his misuse of the system.

registration for all firearms,

Centralized registration is subsequently used to enforce gun bans/confiscation. Not acceptable.

Besides, decentralized registration is good enough, and we've already had that for all firearms for decades.

required liability insurance for firearm ownership,

At present that is just being proposed as a way to make gun ownership more expensive.

But... Guarantee that the insurance will always be reasonably priced, and make sure that it covers all lawyer bills from any court proceedings (criminal or civil) arising from the use of the gun (as well as paying any judgement from the loss of a civil case), then come back and talk to me.

required safety training for firearm ownership.

Sounds OK. But nothing like Navy Seal training just to get a gun. The training would have to be something that an ordinary civilian can handle.

 

[MickeyW]

All great rebuttals Toggle! :thumbs::thumbs:

 

[flogger]

What tone would that be?

The inability to address dissenting opinion without the truck driver profanities he liberally sprinkles in his ad homs with for starters. Hardly the sort of rhetoric an educated person from the legal profession would use.

 

[Kobie]

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"

So SH was a false flag, eh?

 

[flogger]

So SH was a false flag, eh?

You seem to get a lot of those :wink:

 

[haymarket]

There is sound factual basis supporting that the Constitution protects at a minimum the right to have a gun at home suitable for self defense, and probably also a right to carry guns for self defense when people go about in public.



I've had years of experience fighting the gun control movement, and I find that they do want to seriously violate people's Constitutional gun rights, and quite often they enjoy violating people's rights for no reason.



Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes is the philosophical underpinning of our modern legal system.

It recognizes that people have a natural right to defend themselves while under attack if an agent of the government is not present to provide that defense.



How about when a law cannot pass muster with strict scrutiny?

We use strict scrutiny to determine when it is OK for laws to impact other fundamental rights.



Yes, but....

The gun control movement is not after reasonable controls. They want outrageous violations of our Constitutional rights.

I agree that any gun law that would actually improve public safety would pass muster with strict scrutiny, provided that it was narrowly tailored to focus on improving public safety.

Can you actually PROVE anything you said in that post with verifiable evidence?

If all we are doing here is exchanging what we believe - I will be happy to tell you what I believe about guns and the Second Amendment. But how is that debate?

 

[American]

My allegation? What allegation is that?

And why you dream up an imaginary answer, where is the proof of your earlier claims about inbreeding?

I answered that question, now show proof that everything I talk about is questionable.

 

[haymarket]

I answered that question, now show proof that everything I talk about is questionable.

No post of yours during our exchange shows that to be true. And you will NOT name the number or repeat the information you claim you provided.

 

[American]

No post of yours during our exchange shows that to be true. And you will NOT name the number or repeat the information you claim you provided.

I may have been mistaken on that. Guess everything I alleged in that post is under question then.

We're done here.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

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?

There is a big difference. Trump is focused on the problem not the instrument the problem are misusing. That would make Trump smarter. If I hit someone in the face with a baseball bat and killed them the left would put restrictions on baseball bats instead of focusing on me being the problem.

 

[haymarket]

We're done here.

I cannot blame you since you were caught spinning yarns that proved to be false.

 

[WCH]

So SH was a false flag, eh?

That was my first reaction to his statement. Seemed rather odd.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

The following is true, but that something is not to remove due process from the constitution but only for 2A rights.

Johnson said in an interview on "CBS This Morning." "We need to do something to minimize the opportunity for [alleged] terrorists to get a gun in this country."

Why not try actually building a "might be a terrorist" case and getting a conviction? Why not simply set bail at $2 million for the (new?) federal charge of "might be a terrorist" and put them in GITMO until a case can be built? Those that see the 2A as enabling terrorism (or any other crime) seem to have no problem removing (only) that right without due process but would balk at actually locking one with alleged possible terrorist tendencies up.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I agree. It is time to look at the stupid failed policy of gun control. I think all US citizens should be armed and gun control eliminated. Disarming more law abiding citizens only makes more easy targets for these killers.

It is more than clear the government as well as the police are completely in capable of protecting us from these killers. We have seen this over and over again. The number of people being killed has escalated since the implementation of homeland security. We are less secure and the only thing the government has been able to restrict is our rights.

Had US citizens been armed in that club people would have been able to protect themselves and the this killer would never have been able to kill 49 people.

The left need to listen to JFK.:thumbs:

My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

Exercise your right to bear arms and you can protect yourself. Only you can protect yourself from these killers.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

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.

It is removing a right by executive action: the people on the list haven't been convicted of anything, yet their rights are no longer recognized based on some ethereal suspicion by a policing agency (not a court).

 

[haymarket]

It is removing a right by executive action: the people on the list haven't been convicted of anything, yet their rights are no longer recognized based on some ethereal suspicion by a policing agency (not a court).

Which is why I support a process so a person is notified when placed on such a list and having a process for challenging it.

 

[jonny5]

While there certainly is in any society "a certain segment...which doesn't care about consequences", why, then, is America's homicide rate (and violent crime rate, and frequency of mass shootings) FAR higher than that of any other first-world nation? If it's no different here as anywhere else as you say, then the rates SHOULD be statistically similar...

...but they're anything but similar.

And when it comes to Muslims, try adding up all the Muslims who have committed terrorist acts in America - go ahead, add them all up - and then compare that total to the 3.3 million Muslims that are in America today. In other words, because of the acts of what is an almost microscopic minority of Muslims, the Right wants to blame and cast suspicions on the far greater whole who are good, law-abiding citizens and legal residents.

On a side note, on this same subject, the American Medical Association pointed out that 10% of ALL American physicians are Muslims. Compare that to the fact that the 3.3M Muslims in America comprise slightly over 1% of Americans...and that tells us that Muslims are almost ten times more likely to become doctors than the "normal" non-Muslim American.

Ah, but Trump and the increasingly-Islamophobic Right would never believe such stuff, 'cause obviously, the American Medical Association must have become a shill for ISIS....

Youre the only one painting all muslims the same. I was only referring to the ones who practice or support violence. Wheras such crime was limited to gangs in the past, now we have religious crusaders which is a new thing for the US in the last few decades.

And FYI, US murder rate is #14, not FAR higher than any other first world nation.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Can you actually PROVE anything you said in that post with verifiable evidence?

Note the Ninth Amendment and its incorporation of all existing rights in society, including Common Law rights.

Note also the following court rulings following the 1689 English Bill of Rights:

Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."

Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."

Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."

Rex v. Dewhurst (1820): "A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."

 

[jet57]

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.

Well, saying that people on the no fly list can't have guns means that American citizens cannot keep and bear, so it looks like the test is on.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Well, saying that people on the no fly list can't have guns means that American citizens cannot keep and bear, so it looks like the test is on.

It's insane, removing rights without a court order. I'm not sure how that's not a police state, where those who enforce the law decide what rights you may exert.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Which is why I support a process so a person is notified when placed on such a list and having a process for challenging it.

And I support a process where DHS has to appear before a judge and/or jury in open court and explain why a given individual should have a right removed without a conviction.