Gun control Reframing the Issue as a National Security Imperative’

[livingston]

Clinton-Obama Official: Biden Could Get Gun Control Through Congress by ‘Reframing the Issue as a National Security Imperativ

Clinton-Obama official Steven Simon is urging President Joe Biden to designate gun control a “national security imperative” in order to get it through Congress.

Politico published an op-ed written by Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, who served as the National Security Council’s “director for political-military affairs” for roughly two years during the Obama administration.

The central point of the op-ed is to urge Biden to reframe gun control in a way that puts the onus on Congress

Simon and Stevenson noted:

We share Biden’s view that the level of U.S. gun violence is a “national embarrassment.” But as National Security Council veterans who have specialized in counterterrorism—with direct experience involving far-right American terrorism, burgeoning jihadism, and Northern Irish extremism in the 1990s—we also see a new threat rising, one that has the potential to change the urgency of the debate: the growing, and heavily armed, American militia movement, which made a show of force on January 6.
Increasingly, as militias acquire and stockpile weapons, they’re turning guns from a public-health concern into a threat to national security. And it’s possible that if proponents of reform—including advocacy groups, congressional leaders and Biden—began addressing it that way, they’d have a chance of energizing the debate against the National Rifle Association and its allies.

Clinton-Obama Official: Gun Control a 'National Security Imperative'

Clinton-Obama official Steven Simon is urging Biden to designate gun control as a "national security imperative."

www.breitbart.com

 

[livingston]

Opinion | Why Gun Control Is Now a Matter of National Security

Biden should seize on the rise of far-right militias to make an urgent new case for action.

www.politico.com

Biden should seize on the rise of far-right militias to make an urgent new case for action.

As America learned on January 6, anti-government militia groups are more than willing to jump walls, break doors and disrupt the underpinnings of our democracy. These groups, with transnational ties, also enjoy easy access to high-power, high-capacity, small-caliber semiautomatic weapons—many of which can be converted to fully automatic. The concern isn’t that these weapons will somehow enable militias to challenge the U.S. military on the battlefield, which they certainly will not. It is that they make mass casualty attacks against political or cultural adversaries both easy to carry out, and easy to frame as inspirational events of the kind that mobilize insurrection.

 

[Deplorable Me]

When they take gun control and crime control serious in Chicago/NYC then maybe I'll give a shit. Otherwise it's all politics, bullshit and infringement.

 

[libertysnake]

First off, what happened on Jan 6th was not "heavily armed." If The People wanted to do anything armed, it would've been overwhelming. You're talking 130ish million people own guns in the USA. If even a fraction of them wanted to do harm, it would be laughable to oppose them.

Which brings me to the second point: the entire point of 2A is precisely that the people are a feasible threat, and therefore deterrent, to governmental tyranny. It doesn't mean making use of that deterrent is without justification, or shouldn't be held liable or without consequence, but the people should always have the option to defend themselves against enemies they see as foreign or domestic. (I don't think we're near that point personally, nor will be on my lifetime.)

To be trying to remove the idea of The People being armed and organized is criminal in that it undermines the purpose of 2A.

 

[togmaster]

So the government doesn't like an armed population that disagrees with the way they are governing and has the ability to throw them out. Someone should write that down somewhere.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Steven Simon can go suck a fat dick but only after it has fucked him in the ass a few hundred times and it's covered in his corn ridden shit. Might as well make the whole bill of rights a "national security imperative".

 

[IrishMick]

Gotta get rid of that pesky "Stand up to Tyranny Loophole" in the constitution.

 

[spat]

"Have you tried not doing things that would make the people want to overthrow you ?"

 

[repete]

I believe it is a national security issue, without firearms we have no security nor a nation (at least as we know it)!

 

[Saltwater60]

How about actual national security issues like illegals flooding the boarder.

 

[Acer-m14]

How about actual national security issues like illegals flooding the boarder.

The Democratic Party is now to be known as the "Illegal Immigration Cartel" now get off your ass DHS and start arresting ...

 

[Grimscale]

(I don't think we're near that point personally, nor will be on my lifetime.)

Your optimism is refreshing.

But I feel we're less than 10 years away from seeing The People have to turn to firearms to defend themselves from their own government. Probably closer to 4 years away, actually.
At the rate this administration is infringing on various parts of the Constitution, I fully expect to see States start secession proceedings by the middle of 2022.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Which brings me to the second point: the entire point of 2A is precisely that the people are a feasible threat, and therefore deterrent, to governmental tyranny. It doesn't mean making use of that deterrent is without justification, or shouldn't be held liable or without consequence, but the people should always have the option to defend themselves against enemies they see as foreign or domestic.

Thank you!

That's one of the fundamental layers of the 2a. The government IS supposed to fear their citizens if they do us wrong. That's the point. We are the ultimate check and balance on tyranny and government abuse.

Too many in government now forget that they SERVE the people. They think their purpose is to control us.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

How about actual national security issues like illegals flooding the boarder.

You mean future democrat voters and insurance on one party rule?

 

[Mr. terzmo]

Clinton-Obama Official: Biden Could Get Gun Control Through Congress by ‘Reframing the Issue as a National Security Imperativ

Clinton-Obama official Steven Simon is urging President Joe Biden to designate gun control a “national security imperative” in order to get it through Congress.

Politico published an op-ed written by Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, who served as the National Security Council’s “director for political-military affairs” for roughly two years during the Obama administration.

The central point of the op-ed is to urge Biden to reframe gun control in a way that puts the onus on Congress

Simon and Stevenson noted:

Clinton-Obama Official: Gun Control a 'National Security Imperative'

Clinton-Obama official Steven Simon is urging Biden to designate gun control as a "national security imperative."

www.breitbart.com

"The central point of the op-ed is to urge Biden to reframe gun control in a way that puts the onus on Congress"

WTF..it's always been Congress as that's 'supposed" to be the will of the people and not a Dictator President who abuses Executive action.

 

[Robin]

Maybe he could, and maybe he couldn't get it through both houses of congress. One thing for sure and no maybe's about it, he will never get it through my house.
Robin

 

[BerettaGuy]

Interesting take! When National Security is at stake, Constitutional Restrictions are lifted. US Customs for example. I say DO IT! Let's get it over with.

 

[GOPerfect]

National Security is a very serious matter that should be discussed as often as possible.

The Gun Issue>? I do not see it rising to National Security. Not even close.

A few things that I do believe are serious NS issues though are as follows:


The influx and mass, unlawful migration of current times on the southern boarder. We, as a Nation, are allowing more and more, uneducated and unskilled aliens to enter through the Southern Boarder. They bring nothing of value to the US. They bring more poverty. They bring sickness and disease. We need no more of that. They do not speak our language, they do not respect our laws. They add nothing to the collective that we want or seek.

Overall violence and crime within the inner cities and the ghettos. This is a serious NS issue and it is being ignored. They are more worried about a disgusting drug filled criminal dying that they are about the wanton disregard to what is occurring in our once awesome large cities. Yes, it is the inner cities, not the suburbs or the rural areas of the Country. The overwhelming vast majority of murder and other serious crimes are all within the city limits. Not all parts of the cities; certain areas. This is a situation that needs to stop. It is a cancer that is growing beyond anyone's control. Tough conversations need to be made and put all political correctness aside.

Our legal system and its failings are a third serious NS issue that can be fixed as well. Again, real, honest dialog needs to be have. These are only three that I will mention at this point. There are others, but the gun issue is NOT one of them.

 

[libertysnake]

National Security is a very serious matter that should be discussed as often as possible.

The Gun Issue>? I do not see it rising to National Security. Not even close.

A few things that I do believe are serious NS issues though are as follows:


The influx and mass, unlawful migration of current times on the southern boarder. We, as a Nation, are allowing more and more, uneducated and unskilled aliens to enter through the Southern Boarder. They bring nothing of value to the US. They bring more poverty. They bring sickness and disease. We need no more of that. They do not speak our language, they do not respect our laws. They add nothing to the collective that we want or seek.

Overall violence and crime within the inner cities and the ghettos. This is a serious NS issue and it is being ignored. They are more worried about a disgusting drug filled criminal dying that they are about the wanton disregard to what is occurring in our once awesome large cities. Yes, it is the inner cities, not the suburbs or the rural areas of the Country. The overwhelming vast majority of murder and other serious crimes are all within the city limits. Not all parts of the cities; certain areas. This is a situation that needs to stop. It is a cancer that is growing beyond anyone's control. Tough conversations need to be made and put all political correctness aside.

Our legal system and its failings are a third serious NS issue that can be fixed as well. Again, real, honest dialog needs to be have. These are only three that I will mention at this point. There are others, but the gun issue is NOT one of them.

A lot of what you're saying is due to the fact there is no pushback. That's the reason why "wokeness" is unchecked -- people aren't banding together and making it unpopular. If there is no pushback, something will run unrestrained.

Part of the reason there is no pushback is because this wasn't pushed back against sooner, before "wokeness" hit critical mass. Now that it has, "wokeness" squashes dissent and ruins lives.

It's going to be a tough road out. The sooner we start pushing back, the better.

 

[spat]

A lot of what you're saying is due to the fact there is no pushback. That's the reason why "wokeness" is unchecked -- people aren't banding together and making it unpopular. If there is no pushback, something will run unrestrained.

Part of the reason there is no pushback is because this wasn't pushed back against sooner, before "wokeness" hit critical mass. Now that it has, "wokeness" squashes dissent and ruins lives.

It's going to be a tough road out. The sooner we start pushing back, the better.

They are following the playbook that has led to nearly every mass atrocity in history.

They are following it because it works, and it's still working.

Our constitution has made criminalizing opposition to their regime difficult, so they opened the facist playbook and enlist the giant corporations to do things the government is forbidden from touching.

That's why pointing out logical flaws in their argument is now "racist" and you can be fired from your job and shunned from society for doing so.

People don't band together because any attempt to do so gets them turned into outcasts.

We really need to build some better private networks that will allow organizing without exposing the members to individual attack.

 

[SonOfSun]

...You're talking 130ish million people own guns in the USA. If even a fraction of them wanted to do harm, it would be laughable to oppose them....

No. Tanks go squash & boom.

 

[spat]

No. Tanks go squash & boom.

How do you imagine that working ?

Better than it did in Vietnam ? Afghanistan ? Iraq ?

People who think like you imagine the militia lining up like a bunch of british red coats to get mowed down by artillery and heavy weapons.

Why on earth would the militia fight like that ?

How will tanks and air power defeat an opponent that blends in with the civilian population and attacks targets of opportunity ?

 

[dwa12479]

No. Tanks go squash & boom.

Maybe one of the most ignorant arguments ever.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Maybe one of the most ignorant arguments ever.

There have been many threads here that describe why that thinking is wrong. I'm not going to take the time to hash it out again but @spat started alluding to it.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

We are fast approaching the 250th anniversary(5y2m2d) of our independence from a tyrannical government. The similarities between that era and now should not be ignored. Some of the major circumstances that forced us into a war are exactly the same today - oppressive taxes, total disregard for our natural rights, and ignoring the will of the people. Do you know what the biggest difference is?

WE ARE NOT FUCKING DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

It was not our intention to go to war. Every reasonable effort seems to have been made to avoid it. The government did not listen.

We hold in reserve, the same right, the same duty, to throw off such government, but we have a responsibility to our countrymen and this once great republic, to give one last very clear, and FINAL warning.

Lets celebrate the 250th anniversary of our independence in a big way, and we can start now. It will be the most American thing we ever experience in our lifetime.

 

[Grimscale]

Lets celebrate the 250th anniversary of our independence in a big way, and we can start now. It will be the most American thing we ever experience in our lifetime.

you really think there will be anyone left free in 5 years to celebrate anything?

in 5 years a significant percentage of the population will have died, and the rest will be scrambling just for basic sustenance, thanks to this coup.
All you need to do is look at other countries that have traveled this road: Cuba, Venzuela, etc.

 

[livingston]

you really think there will be anyone left free in 5 years to celebrate anything?

in 5 years a significant percentage of the population will have died, and the rest will be scrambling just for basic sustenance, thanks to this coup.
All you need to do is look at other countries that have traveled this road: Cuba, Venzuela, etc.

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

you really think there will be anyone left free in 5 years to celebrate anything?

in 5 years a significant percentage of the population will have died, and the rest will be scrambling just for basic sustenance, thanks to this coup.
All you need to do is look at other countries that have traveled this road: Cuba, Venzuela, etc.

I don't think anyone is truly free now. We live under the control of a despotic government because we tolerate it. Some may enjoy it, but the majority do it out of fear.

While I believe we should exhaust all other options first, the path America is on will likely lead to another war. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but if it does, it is worth celebrating.

 

[tirwin1]

No. Tanks go squash & boom.

That certainly worked against the Afghan people didn’t it? Squashing and booming for 20 years and we are the ones that are leaving.

 

[spat]

That certainly worked against the Afghan people didn’t it? Squashing and booming for 20 years and we are the ones that are leaving.

Don't forget, the Soviets tried it for a couple decades before we did.

Unlike us, you can't claim they they failed due to touchy feely ROE either.

It's just proof that you can only win a war by making the other side want to stop (or I suppose genocide).

It always comes down to a contest of wills. Does the militia want freedom more than the establishment wants power.

Tanks and planes can affect your opponents will to fight, but they cannot win the war.