• 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

jonny5 said:
Sorry, China, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, India, Mexico are third world countries? Every one of those is in the g20 group.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between having a large GDP - which is what's required to be part of the G20 - and being a first-world nation. "Being a first-world nation" means that the great majority of the citizens have a first-world lifestyle.

Go live in Mexico for awhile and you'll see what I mean. Of all those countries you listed above, none of them have a first-world standard of living for their population. Russia's getting closer, but they're still struggling - they're not there yet. China's got some of the most ultramodern cities on the planet...but wait till you get outside the nicer parts of the cities. When it comes to India, there's a billion of their citizens who don't have access to the internet.

Investopedia provides a clearer definition:

DEFINITION of 'First World'
1. A country that was aligned with the West and opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this use of First World has largely gone away.

2. A country characterized by political stability, democracy, rule of law, a capitalist economy, economic stability and a high standard of living. Various definitions have been used for First World nations, including GDP, GNP and literacy rates. The Human Development Index is also a good indicator in determining First World countries.

First-world countries have stable currencies and robust financial markets, making them attractive to investors from all over the world. Examples of first-world countries include the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Western European countries. First-world countries are in the minority; most countries are classified as second- or third-world.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
There's a big difference between having a large GDP - which is what's required to be part of the G20 - and being a first-world nation. "Being a first-world nation" means that the great majority of the citizens have a first-world lifestyle.

Go live in Mexico for awhile and you'll see what I mean. Of all those countries you listed above, none of them have a first-world standard of living for their population. Russia's getting closer, but they're still struggling - they're not there yet. China's got some of the most ultramodern cities on the planet...but wait till you get outside the nicer parts of the cities. When it comes to India, there's a billion of their citizens who don't have access to the internet.

Investopedia provides a clearer definition:

DEFINITION of 'First World'
1. A country that was aligned with the West and opposed to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, this use of First World has largely gone away.

2. A country characterized by political stability, democracy, rule of law, a capitalist economy, economic stability and a high standard of living. Various definitions have been used for First World nations, including GDP, GNP and literacy rates. The Human Development Index is also a good indicator in determining First World countries.

First-world countries have stable currencies and robust financial markets, making them attractive to investors from all over the world. Examples of first-world countries include the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Western European countries. First-world countries are in the minority; most countries are classified as second- or third-world.
Click to expand...

I think youre stretching. Perhaps if you limited your scope to some of Europe and north america.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
It is amazing the convolutions the left goes through to denigrate and try to nullify 2A rights.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable how they always do that.

TurtleDude said:
its so pathetic and they lie with a straight face.
Click to expand...

Every time a liberals lips move, they are lying or obfuscating.

PIPEWRENCH said:
100 armed citizens will quickly stop a nut with a gun. 100 unarmed and you end up with 49 dead or more depending on how long it takes for someone else with a gun shows up and finally ends the turkey shoot. The truth is the truth and when it doesn't fit your agenda you try and side step the truth.
Click to expand...

It's Elementary Watson! The trouble with tribbles...er....liberals, is that they act like tribbles.

Tribbles= funny little fuzzy creatures that bred and contribute nothing.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, for a bunch of white, rich, inbred, slave owning racists, they sure as hell knew what they were doing dontcha know!
 
soot said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with exactly what you are saying. I think most Americans would support this. The problem is - just like the laws we have at our borders which are being ignored, we have a President who is sending the signal to ignore all of this - to stand down. The Orlando shooter was on several lists - many, many people were alerted to the possibility of trouble from this man. But at the end of the day, no one acted. Changing our gun laws isn't about stopping crime, it is simply fulfilling Obama's legacy. He's a pompous, arrogant, sob who doesn't think the rules of our country have any bearing on what he wants to do with our country. I'm sorry if this offends any readers but please understand, i fell for it. I believed he could and would make a positive difference and I voted for him. I feel betrayed as an individual and as a member of this great country. The politicians who walked out during the moment of silence, they don't care about the LGBT community or the Sandy Hook community or the Boston community or any community. All they care about is getting across what they consider "their way". Passing a bunch of laws which will not hinder the criminals from having guns and committing crimes. If the people in our country were smart, they'd stop caring about who is registered and how, but look to see if this government is really out to help them and their families. And, just how bad things have become since this man took control (oops I mean office).

Look at the stance this President took on transgender bathroom use - wow, he was ever so open and frank and angry about the topic. So much so that he sent out a memo to all school districts around our country. Yet, this same President cannot even be passionate enough to call these monsters - radical Islamic Terrorists. He says - what will it accomplish? Well, ask yourselves why he draws this line in the sand. He does so because he doesn't care how the rest of us are feeling. What is happening in our country isn't about race, religion, income, health care, sexual orientation or gun control. What is happening in our country is one man's TYRANNY of this great land that use to be a free Republic.
 
flogger said:
Given the tone of his rhetoric how could anyone possibly believe he ever was one ?
Click to expand...

I'm a lawyer licensed in California, and I believe it. Nothing says lawyers have to be gentlemen when they're addressing antidemocratic collectivist know-nothings.
 
matchlight said:
I'm a lawyer licensed in California, and I believe it. Nothing says lawyers have to be gentlemen when they're addressing antidemocratic collectivist know-nothings.
Click to expand...

Well if you believe that then all I can say is I'm glad you aren't my lawyer

I'm an astronaut BTW :cool:
 
haymarket said:
The Constitution does not say that. And you have provided no quote from it which does.
Click to expand...
Here:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That protects all rights not protected elsewhere in the Constitution, including the Common Law right to have guns for self defense if it is not covered by the Second Amendment.


haymarket said:
Ah yes - the standard fall back line from the believer. Sorry - but nothing challenged in debate is "self evident" especially claims made about the existence of rights and the exercise of them.
Click to expand...
Well the parts where I stated my personal observations, I hope my statement that "those were my personal observations" is satisfactory.

If you really want proof that Leviathan was the foundation of modern legal philosophy and that it includes natural human rights, I'll see what I can Google.

Here we go:
Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The opening paragraph should give an idea of the significance of Hobbes (he developed social contract theory, which underpins our modern understanding of the legitimacy of government).

Section 9 "The Limits of Political Obligation" goes on to describe the fundamental human rights that all people possess naturally.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Here:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That protects all rights not protected elsewhere in the Constitution, including the Common Law right to have guns for self defense if it is not covered by the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Actually it does not as your qualifying words of ALL RIGHTS renders your statement null and void and false on its face. There indeed may be other rights implemented from time to time but to say the Amendment is referring to ALL RIGHTS is simply absurd and without any foundation.

If you really want proof that Leviathan was the foundation of modern legal philosophy and that it includes natural human rights, I'll see what I can Google.
Click to expand...

As to Hobbes - I am NOT saying that certain writers were not influential to the development of certain ideas. But Hobbes not Locke nor anyone else can invent and bestow rights that protect people and their behaviors. Only government can do that.

So any emphasis or credit you want to give to one philosopher over others for our system of rights is irrelevant and your own personal opinion.
 
haymarket said:
Actually it does not as your qualifying words of ALL RIGHTS renders your statement null and void and false on its face. There indeed may be other rights implemented from time to time but to say the Amendment is referring to ALL RIGHTS is simply absurd and without any foundation.
Click to expand...
It doesn't say that some rights can be dismissed while other rights are protected. It provides the same protections to a right no matter what that right is. That means that all rights get protected.


haymarket said:
As to Hobbes - I am NOT saying that certain writers were not influential to the development of certain ideas. But Hobbes not Locke nor anyone else can invent and bestow rights that protect people and their behaviors. Only government can do that.
Click to expand...
We use the system that he created, and he created that system with inherent natural rights being an essential part of it.


haymarket said:
So any emphasis or credit you want to give to one philosopher over others for our system of rights is irrelevant and your own personal opinion.
Click to expand...
It seems to be the opinion of most of humanity, or at least most of that portion of humanity that studies law.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
It doesn't say that some rights can be dismissed while other rights are protected. It provides the same protections to a right no matter what that right is. That means that all rights get protected.
Click to expand...

When you say ALL RIGHTS GET PROTECTED - you are dishonestly inventing language that does NOT appear in the Constitution.

We use the system that he created, and he created that system with inherent natural rights being an essential part of it.
Click to expand...

I taught Government and US History for 33 years and did not realize Hobbes was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. I always understood that the Founding fathers created our system of government and they used a wide variety of inspirations including their own thoughts on the matter.

But please do post the verifiable evidence that Hobbes created the American constitutional system of government. I too want to learn something new.

It seems to be the opinion of most of humanity, or at least most of that portion of humanity that studies law.
Click to expand...

You provide not a shred of verifiable evidence for this claim.
 
Last edited:
So limit the rights and freedoms of Americans but allow Islamic immigration...This man needs to do time for treason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom