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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What these "meaningful gun control" narratives all tend to play down or deny is the degree to which the criminal misuse of a firearm is driven by individual people making individual decisions.

Injustice is never in the public’s best interest, and it is unjust to respond to the criminal misuse of firearms by depriving the innocent and the victims of their fundamental right for the use of force in times of danger and their constitutional right to carry the means of that defense on their person.
 
Michael T linked to a BBC interview, but unfortunately it quotes the article, not the literal language that came out of the President's mouth. His track record on the subject certainly does seem to indicate that he's saying "Americans with guns are worse than Muslim terrorists" but it's a summary of the writer/editor stating that, not him.

Be careful citing it. There is as yet no verbatim quote to use.

As for Muslim terrorism, it's accurately reported in their Holy History open text for all to read. Towns were captured, tens of thousands sold into slavery, and tribute taken on an annual basis. It's the basis of the slave trade that brought Africans in bondage to America. Of the 12 MILLION exported from Africa the States received over 330,000. Islam controlled the slave trade in Africa - and Muslim terrorists capturing whole villages and marching off the survivors to ship overseas did it.

Certainly NOT white slavers and mostly using swords. They only recently adopted the AK as it was cheap or free considering the source.

With that in mind is it no wonder some are predisposed to hating the AR - America's Rifle. It's a symbol of exactly what they want to suppress - an Independent Citizen more than capable of defending their freedom. It's anathema to their cause and they are doing all they can to demonize it.

It's why they keep calling for AR's to be banned - even when they aren't the actual weapon used - and rarely make the case about the AK or attempt to restrict it. It's usually included because they don't want us to have ANY guns at all - which CA has proven with it's No Semi Auto Law which bans Garands and Mini 14's along with the rest.

Which many of us told you would happen decades earlier. It's here!

Once the bullets start flying it's too late to be sitting on the fence.
 
At the risk of thread drift, it is obvious that the Dems think they have a winning issue with this. There is an article in today's WSJ that they are targeting Republican senators in swing states. I haven't read the whole article but Pennsylvania and Ohio were specifically mentioned.

To me, it comes back to we need to contact our representatives and senators and politely and firmly ask them to support the second amendment and get Homeland Security and the FBI to do their jobs correctly and thoroughly. I'm sorry if some Muslims may be offended but the PC crowd is, in my opinion, complicit in the loss of American lives.

As I just gave some money to the RNC, I am also contacting them. I do recognize that they came out pro-Second Amendment in response to the Orlando terrorism.

I suppose we could contact the White House but I think they honestly believe America and Americans are the problem, not violent terrorists that the government obviously isn't protecting us from.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The Constitution says otherwise
 
Okay, read the entire WSJ article. Apparently the Repub's do have a proposal to rival the Dem's gun control push. To paraphrase, if someone on the watchlist tries to buy a gun, Justice would be notified and have 72 hours to investigate and get a judge to deny the purchase where there is probable cause to believe it would be used in terrorism.

While I don't like any additional gun control measures that is certainly a lot better than what the Dem's want. (Of course, I don't believe the Dem's are trying to do anything but ban guns.) Oh and in a case like Marteen, the Repub's proposal might actually have worked assuming HSA and the FBI were actually doing their jobs.

Not sure I want the Repub's talking loudly about their proposal but it is nice to know it is there so I can use it when talking with some "fence sitters" I know.
 
Last edited:
With all that is known so far on Mateen (wife beater, interviewed by FBI, travel to Saudi Arabia, anti-American Afghani father, co-worker complaints, etc), the fact that he wasn’t being watched is appalling. Hmmm? This seems somewhat similar to the San Bernadino shooters but they weren’t as far out as Mateen was. Clearly Johnson is not doing his job and is deflecting to save his own butt.

DHS actually deleted from its database information which could have prevented both the San Bernardino and Orlando attacks, see http://video.foxnews.com/v/49419878...ks-out-about-jihad-in-america/?#sp=show-clips
 
Johnson is deflecting from the fact that he isn’t doing his job!

It's absolutely purposeful on the part of this administration. They do everything possible to empower those who want to do us harm, while simultaneously keeping up pressure to destroy our ability to defend ourselves.
 
95XL883 said:
While I don't like any additional gun control measures that is certainly a lot better than what the Dem's want. (Of course, I don't believe the Dem's are trying to do anything but ban guns.) Oh and in a case like Marteen, the Repub's proposal might actually have worked assuming HSA and the FBI were actually doing their jobs.

And therein lies the problem. FBI and HSA are being TOLD not to do their jobs. That would undermine two of this administrations prime goals.

1) Fundamentaly change America and
2) Enact "meaningful" gun control

I firmly believe that if the earlier investigations into this shooter had turned up concrete evidence of his plans, it would have been quietly swept under the rug...
 
The AMA is jumping into this also.

They will declare that gun violence is a public health emergency.

Get ready folks, it is coming at us from all sides.

The AMA advocating for these gun control laws to reduce gun crime would be like them advocating snake oil for heart disease.

If the AMA wants to deem gun crime a public health emergency, then they should bind themselves to advocating for policy positions that have been proven to be effective. Not a single one of the "gun control" laws proposed by leftists would have any positive effect on crime.

What would work?
1) Control the borders
2) Identify & surveil the true threats (ie radical islamists & radical leftists - not Christians, military veterans and people who "support the constitution" which is whom Obama's DHS named as the greatest national security threats)
3) Expand concealed carry to all states & jurisdictions of the U.S.
4) Eliminate "gun free" killing zones unless there is perimeter control and sufficient on-site, armed security
5) Provide harsh penalties for violent crime. Use of a firearm in the commission of a crime - 10 years minimum. If someone is seriously injured: 20 years minimum. If someone is killed: life without parole or death penalty. As it is today, felons who are caught with guns can be federally prosecuted where they can get 5 years for each bullet - don't necessarily agree with that application of federal jurisdiction but if we did this with a fraction of criminal offenses we'd clean up the streets pretty quickly.
 
Last edited:
"DHS actually deleted from its database information which could have prevented both the San Bernardino and Orlando attacks, see http://video.foxnews.com/v/494198788...#sp=show-clips"

Wow! Surprising but not surprising. I'm glad I'm waiting until tonight to compose my letters to my rep and senators. The guy actually says Homeland Security had a good chance of stopping both San Bernadino and Orlando terrorism if they weren't deleting records. Dems will be looking to keep that under wraps and/or discredit Haney. I'll be sure to mention it to my congressmen.

I don't want to say it but judging from what they do, the administration firmly believes Americans are the problem and that the Islamic terrorists are the good guys/victims. How do they live with themselves?!?!
 
5) Provide harsh penalties for violent crime. Use of a firearm in the commission of a crime - 10 years minimum. If someone is seriously injured: 20 years minimum. If someone is killed: life without parole or death penalty. As it is today, felons who are caught with guns can be federally prosecuted where they can get 5 years for each bullet - don't necessarily agree with that application of federal jurisdiction but if we did this with a fraction of criminal offenses we'd clean up the streets pretty quickly.

Obama just released a bunch of criminals early, including at least 12 who had gun charges. The gun charges were mostly being in possession of a gun while dealing drugs or similar, but it's still hypocrisy of the highest order.
 
Deanimator said:
Nothing he wants is going to happen... unless the Republicans decide to hand the House and Senate to the Democrats.

Sadly, that's not the case. McConnell and Ryan will roll over and wag their tails just like they have on everything else this administration has asked for. Do I really have to start giving examples?
 
Sadly, that's not the case. McConnell and Ryan will roll over and wag their tails just like they have on everything else this administration has asked for. Do I really have to start giving examples?
Then people will stay home and they'll lose Congress. Their choice.

Actions have consequences.
 
While I don't like any additional gun control measures that is certainly a lot better than what the Dem's want.

Why, exactly, are we giving up ANYTHING? Heck, I dare the dems to introduce the nastiest, worst possible ban they can think of --it'll by definition be destined to go nowhere, same as why they don't bring up a constitutional amendment like they're supposed to. The only reason we would offer ANYTHING they might find palatable on this issue, is because we actually want to do 'something' about gun violence. We've known for decades now that these types of legislative solutions are both counterproductive and corrosive to liberty. Since they won't work on gun violence, that means the only reason we would conceivably support these measures is because it accomplishes limited, incremental, gun control for the sake of gun control. I do not support gun control for its own sake.

We'd be bleeding ourselves dry solely in the hopes that the dems will like us (or similar 'feelzy' reasons)

TCB
 
Nothing he wants is going to happen... unless the Republicans decide to hand the House and Senate to the Democrats.
Or fold.

The current administration is desperate to ban semiautomatic type rifles. They are afraid they will lose in November and want to do something now. All we have to do is stand tough. Problem is, we are counting on the pro gun politicians not to fold. We must put pressure on them.
 
Or fold.

The current administration is desperate to ban semiautomatic type rifles. They are afraid they will lose in November and want to do something now. All we have to do is stand tough. Problem is, we are counting on the pro gun politicians not to fold. We must put pressure on them.
Folding is exactly the same thing as giving Congress to the Democrats.

There would be SUCH a wave of revulsion in not just gun owners (I'm not even a Republican), but Republicans and conservatives in general, the polling places would have tumbleweeds rolling through them come November.

The Republicans in Congress have a choice. They can hang tough or they can hang out in the unemployment line.
 
“Why, exactly, are we giving up ANYTHING? Heck, I dare the dems to introduce the nastiest, worst possible ban they can think of --it'll by definition be destined to go nowhere, same as why they don't bring up a constitutional amendment like they're supposed to. The only reason we would offer ANYTHING they might find palatable on this issue, is because we actually want to do 'something' about gun violence. We've known for decades now that these types of legislative solutions are both counterproductive and corrosive to liberty. Since they won't work on gun violence, that means the only reason we would conceivably support these measures is because it accomplishes limited, incremental, gun control for the sake of gun control. I do not support gun control for its own sake.”

Giving up anything is one reason I don’t like it. The other is I’m not sure it would help. More likely, the Dems would take it and then cry they need more time, yada, yada. As I was trying to convey the only thing I really like about the proposal is that I can use it when trying to sway fence sitters, especially ones that tend towards anti-2nd amendment.

You know as long as it is the name of safety, there should be some additions to the Repub’s proposal. Say, silencers no longer on the NFA list, mandatory must-issue permits in all states and DC, the firing of Jeh Johnson, allowing newly made full auto firearms on the NFA list (okay this one probably isn’t safety related but they should give us something for giving up anything), admitting radical Islam is a problem, regular tracking of Muslims who go to the mid-East and openly display violent tendencies and have anti-American, foreign national parents. I’m sure you get my drift by now. I don’t really like any dealings with the Dems on gun control; they have proven themselves untrustworthy.

Time to get to work on my letter to my congress critters.
 
Folding is exactly the same thing as giving Congress to the Democrats.
The result would of course be the same.

The point stands, we need to put pressure on the pro gun politicians in Congress to stand firm and not cave in. I am sure some are already getting itchy feet. We must write, email, etc and make them understand we are behind them if they stand tall, and will dump them if they don't.
 
I'm interested to see how 'conservatives' will react to calls for gun control from this perspective. "It's a matter of national security!

It IS a matter of national security for which the entire concept of a citizen militia was created, and that should be the basis upon which it is answered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top