• 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

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.

Look, I don't now how many times I've all but screamed - the right-wing better get smart and start helping with this problem instead of obstructing ideas for solutions, OR they are going to create a NEED for the government to do it. The radical right and the NRA made their choices, and here we are.
 
Look, I don't now how many times I've all but screamed - the right-wing better get smart and start helping with this problem instead of obstructing ideas for solutions, OR they are going to create a NEED for the government to do it. The radical right and the NRA made their choices, and here we are.

The problem is Gun Free Zones, like this bar and virtually every other location for spree kills.
 
The problem is Gun Free Zones, like this bar and virtually every other location for spree kills.

Wrong. There was an armed guard working the club in Orlando that night and he did nothing. I think he got shot.

This all it takes:



It does not take a gun to stop a shooter.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. There was an armed guard working the club in Orlando that night and he did nothing. I think he got shot.

Cite? I read there was an off-duty cop working the door, but hadn't seen mention that he was armed. Furthermore, one even armed guard at one known location does not remove the GFZ designation; by florida law, even those with concealed carry permits can not carry in a bar. That makes it a GFZ with obviously inadequate security to protect their disarmed patrons.
 
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.

Taking a Right from a citizen without due process. Justify that.
 
Cite? I read there was an off-duty cop working the door, but hadn't seen mention that he was armed. Furthermore, one even armed guard at one known location does not remove the GFZ designation; by florida law, even those with concealed carry permits can not carry in a bar. That makes it a GFZ with obviously inadequate security to protect their disarmed patrons.

Florida Gay Nightclub Massacre Proves Armed Security Isn't Likely to be Effective - The Truth About Guns

It’s important to note that the Pulse nightclub killer exchanged gunfire with a police officer working security at the venue. The officer was unable to stop the murderer, who proceeded to kill 50 and wound dozens more. This backs-up our conclusions drawn from our school shooting simulation. When a killer attacks, the first person he targets is armed security. Given that action beats reaction, the chances are high that the perpetrator will neutralize the security first and proceed with impunity. Unless, of course, he or she encounters further armed resistance.

Three horrific hours: Inside the Orlando nightclub massacre

2:02 a.m. Shots ring out as a police officer working as a security guard engages in gun battle with assailant, Omar Mateen, 29, of Port St. Lucie, Fla., outside the Pulse Orlando nightclub around closing time, according to Orlando police chief John Mina. Mateen was armed with an AR-15-style assault rifle, a handgun and an unidentified device.

So, how many people do you think got shot in the spray of the two shooting at each other?

And one other thing: you think it's a good idea to mix guns and alcohol in public?
 
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.

What did Mr. Johnson's agency, with its vast resources, ever do to prevent the alien woman who took part in the San Bernardino murders from entering this country and living here just like anyone else? She obviously was not being watched at all. Why was the jihadist at Orlando, who aroused enough suspicion to prompt two official interviews, not being more closely watched? Maybe that was some other agency's job--Johnson is just in charge of "homeland security." Who can doubt that when it comes to jihadists who are polluting the stream of Muslim refugees B. Hussein Obama is letting into our country, Johnson and his boss will have our "homeland security" under control?
 
I see so your justification is "they already are so why care now?"

Of course I care, but as I said, do nothing - get nothing.

This thing is a double edged sword now. We don't want the mentally handicapped out buying guns, and now we don't "possible terrorists" out buying guns either.

Where were your knowledgeable suggestions?

Felons can't buy guns, so I'm sure that is going to be a precedent for this. Like I said, we have too damn many of these ARs etc running around and the gun crowd that that was great! Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
 
You allege that the Founders were INBRED. Provide documentation for that claim.
That was sarcasm I'm pretty sure. I know I'm an expert on the matter but you seriously took that sentence seriously? Seriously?

To be fair, if you could actually ban guns (by which i mean, 100% enforceable), it would have stopped the guy from using a gun. Much like many liberal solutions, its pie in the sky.
And this is where it always ends up in this debate (which is rather dull and repetitive to begin with).
"Nobody is coming for your guns. Nobody is talking about banning guns. Only sensible laws to help keep them out of criminal hands."
"None of these laws would actually have changed tragedy X."
"Well if we ban guns..."
smh

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....
I've pointed out before that this is somewhat dishonest. Saying nations with firearms have more homicides from firearms is like saying nations with cars have more auto accidents.

Other than that:
• I don't see the resistance in background check requirements no matter the type of gun sale.
• I do understand the basic resistance to registering all firearms. Though the idea that you will take up arms against the Government is a bit outmoded. But. Hey. It is a right and if holding on to a right and "hidin' yer guns" from the Government is something you think makes rational sense I will support your right. I don't agree with the mentality but I support the right just like free speech, etc.
• The end result of banning guns altogether is a pipe dream and will not be happening in America. Get over it or move somewhere where firearms are illegal for citizens.
• Come up with solutions that would actually have stopped these incidents instead of using the incidents to try to pass laws that have nothing to do with how these shootings happened.
 
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."

The Ninth Amendment says NOTHING about natural law or common law rights. NOTHING.

Your Rex case is something I agree with. Nobody is trying to take away ones right to have arms. And it also recognizes reasonable limitations on that right so thanks for that case..... even if it does not apply to US law.

We are not under British common law so those things you cited are interesting historical anecdotes - but do not apply here where we have a Constitution and legislation passed by Congress and state legislatures
 
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.

AH! The poison pill solution. Which you know damn well is completely unpractical due to logistics and sheer numbers. Or are you advocating radically increasing the budget for government employees to do this very task?
 
Last edited:
That was sarcasm I'm pretty sure. I know I'm an expert on the matter but you seriously took that sentence seriously? Seriously?

The poster in question had ample opportunity to say that. They did not.
 
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.

Really? SHOW ME YOUR REFERENCE.

And when it comes to "painting Muslims all the same", there's two things you need to consider:

first, I don't "paint them all the same" - thanks to having written a book that forced me to research Islam in more detail than the great majority of non-Muslim Americans know, I fully realize that they are as fractured - if not more so - as mainstream "Christianity". Right now, I'd say Islam is where mainstream "Christianity" was about three or four hundred years ago, when it comes to development of doctrine and tolerance of other sects thereof.

second - and this is the really salient point - if you add up all the Muslims of any stripe who've committed terrorist attacks inside America over the past twenty or thirty years, the total will add up to MAYBE fifty individuals...and that's being really generous. The problem is that the Islamophobic Right is casting suspicion upon ALL the 3.3 million Muslims already living peacefully in America because of the actions of a few dozen individuals who happen to follow (or simply just claim to follow) the same religion...

...and that's wrong in every way.
 
Really? SHOW ME YOUR REFERENCE.

And when it comes to "painting Muslims all the same", there's two things you need to consider:

first, I don't "paint them all the same" - thanks to having written a book that forced me to research Islam in more detail than the great majority of non-Muslim Americans know, I fully realize that they are as fractured - if not more so - as mainstream "Christianity". Right now, I'd say Islam is where mainstream "Christianity" was about three or four hundred years ago, when it comes to development of doctrine and tolerance of other sects thereof.

second - and this is the really salient point - if you add up all the Muslims of any stripe who've committed terrorist attacks inside America over the past twenty or thirty years, the total will add up to MAYBE fifty individuals...and that's being really generous. The problem is that the Islamophobic Right is casting suspicion upon ALL the 3.3 million Muslims already living peacefully in America because of the actions of a few dozen individuals who happen to follow (or simply just claim to follow) the same religion...

...and that's wrong in every way.

I said "And now we have muslims in our society which are being specifically told not to care." And you assumed that meant all muslims. There have been over 25,000 attacks by muslims around the world in the last few decades. Thats a pattern.

Murder Rates
Countries Compared by Crime > Violent crime > Murder rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
 
I said "And now we have muslims in our society which are being specifically told not to care." And you assumed that meant all muslims. There have been over 25,000 attacks by muslims around the world in the last few decades. Thats a pattern.

Murder Rates
Countries Compared by Crime > Violent crime > Murder rate. International Statistics at NationMaster.com

Concerning your reference - I suggest that NEXT time you actually READ what I post. What I SAID (in post #33) was: 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.


On the list in your reference, America's in 14th place...but NONE of the top 13 are first-world nations, to wit:

1 Brazil 40,974 2010
2 India 40,752 2009
3 Mexico 25,757 2010
4 Ethiopia 20,239 2008
5 Indonesia 18,963 2008
6 Nigeria 18,422 2008
7 South Africa 15,940 2010
8 Colombia 15,459 2010
9 Russia 14,574 2010
10 Pakistan 13,860 2011
11 Democratic Republic of the Congo 13,558 2008
12 China 13,410 2010
13 Venezuela 13,080 2010

Read the list above - none of those are first-world nations. In fact, after America, the very next first-world nation on the list is South Korea...in FIFTY-SECOND PLACE.

What I said stands - America has by far the highest homicide rate of all first-world nations on the planet. That, sir, is not a matter of debate.
 
Florida Gay Nightclub Massacre Proves Armed Security Isn't Likely to be Effective - The Truth About Guns



Three horrific hours: Inside the Orlando nightclub massacre



So, how many people do you think got shot in the spray of the two shooting at each other?

And one other thing: you think it's a good idea to mix guns and alcohol in public?

That is why I said one armed security personnel in a known location was inadequate, as this incident proves. If, however, those with a CHL were allowed to carry, there most probably would have been a few inside the club armed. While there are no guarantees in such a situation, it's more likely that the shooter would have been stopped sooner. As for "mixing guns and alcohol", it's no different than expecting drivers to know if they are safe to drive after being at a bar. Several states already allow it, including Ohio, Minnesota, and South Carolina. I'm pretty sure Georgia passed it recently as well. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a massive uptick in bar gunfights in those states.
 
AH! The poison pill solution. Which you know damn well is completely unpractical due to logistics and sheer numbers. Or are you advocating radically increasing the budget for government employees to do this very task?

If you're going to take away rights, it should at least be vetted by a judge. Otherwise, you're giving too much power to policing agencies.
 
That is why I said one armed security personnel in a known location was inadequate, as this incident proves. If, however, those with a CHL were allowed to carry, there most probably would have been a few inside the club armed. While there are no guarantees in such a situation, it's more likely that the shooter would have been stopped sooner. As for "mixing guns and alcohol", it's no different than expecting drivers to know if they are safe to drive after being at a bar. Several states already allow it, including Ohio, Minnesota, and South Carolina. I'm pretty sure Georgia passed it recently as well. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a massive uptick in bar gunfights in those states.

No, we don't need to load up a place with guns. We need to keep people from buying stuff that can kill 50 people in 2 or 3 minutes.

Mixing alcohol in urban area nightclubs has been shown over and over again to be a stupid idea.

You're arguments are not credible.
 
No, we don't need to load up a place with guns. We need to keep people from buying stuff that can kill 50 people in 2 or 3 minutes.

Mixing alcohol in urban area nightclubs has been shown over and over again to be a stupid idea.

You're arguments are not credible.

Has there been an increase in bar gun fights/shootings in states that allow CC in them? If so, it's gotten surprisingly little national news attention. What we need to do is allow people to protect themselves when in public accommodations. I'm not sure how many GFZs need to be shot up before people either wise up and change the laws or stop patronizing them. I know, personally, I won't patronize a GFZ, and that's whether I'm carrying or not.
 
Has there been an increase in bar gun fights/shootings in states that allow CC in them? If so, it's gotten surprisingly little national news attention. What we need to do is allow people to protect themselves when in public accommodations. I'm not sure how many GFZs need to be shot up before people either wise up and change the laws or stop patronizing them. I know, personally, I won't patronize a GFZ, and that's whether I'm carrying or not.

Please.

You're grasping. I'm not going around in circles with you. If you don't have anything credible, then we're done.
 
The Ninth Amendment says NOTHING about natural law or common law rights. NOTHING.
It protects all rights not protected elsewhere. Common Law rights fall under the grouping "all".


Nobody is trying to take away ones right to have arms.
We know better. That's not going to fool anyone.


And it also recognizes reasonable limitations on that right so thanks for that case.....
You do realize that this won't justify unreasonable limitations?


We are not under British common law
Yes we are.


but do not apply here where we have a Constitution and legislation passed by Congress and state legislatures
Common Law rights are incorporated into the Constitution. Legislation is not allowed to violate the Constitution.

Aside from that, Common Law applies in any matter where legislation has not been passed.
 
Please.

You're grasping. I'm not going around in circles with you. If you don't have anything credible, then we're done.

So you think these nuts are not targeting GFZ. Most predators in the wild target the weak, the young, the old, the sick, etc. These are just the facts of life. They apply to all animals including us. The solution is not to create more prey for these attackers but to let those that are able to fight back do so as well as protect those that are not able. That is your solution to the problem.
 
Please.

You're grasping. I'm not going around in circles with you. If you don't have anything credible, then we're done.

I take that as a "no", that there hasn't been an increase in shootings in bars in states that allow CC there. There has been a remarkable increase in shooting deaths in bars in states that don't allow them, such as Florida-49 just the other day.
 
Back
Top Bottom