Skip to main content

National security threats to the United States in decreasing order of priority:

1.  Imminent strategic nuclear attack on US homeland
2.  Terrorists attacking US classrooms to massacre children
3.  Terrorists attacking US cities or businesses
4.  National-scale public health or safety threat (epidemic, hurricane, nuclear meltdown, water/power crisis)
5.  Mass urban rioting, insurrection, national breakdown of civil order
6.  Attack on US citizens or interests abroad
7.  Military attack on a US ally or treaty member
8.  Cyber-attack on critical government or commercial systems
9.  Financial crisis, imminent economic collapse
10. Espionage, treason, loss of critical secret information or alliances...

Sandy Hook was a domestic terrorist attack with a national security priority just below a nuclear attack on the homeland. Defending the lives of our children in our homeland is the absolute primal essence of national security. Even an animal instinctively understands that. Therefore, the recurring series of school massacres using assault weapons and high-capacity magazines constitutes a high-priority national security emergency. Therefore, the President is obligated as the Executive, to respond with emergency Executive action.

An Executive Order freezing all assault weapon and multiround-magazine sales, and prohibiting public carry, may provoke intense controversy, resistance, lawsuits, even civil disobedience and outright public defiance, but so much the better. We need a crisis at the level of the 1960s school-integration showdowns to finally turn the tide.  America needs to see Federal marshals arresting defiant gun-dealers and owners and NRA members.  We need to see an entire "militia" group disarmed and led away in shackles.  If there's high drama and outcry and months of front-page news, what more could we ask to accelerate the pace of change and defend the children?  The President needs to hit this with everything he's got--win or lose, the ensuing events will at least keep the issue in the spotlight.  And, a few Executive Orders in place could be badly-needed "bargaining chips" in the upcoming second round of "fiscal cliff" politics.

Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:25 AM PT: Thank you:

"Biden says Obama could use executive orders to restrict guns"
http://news.yahoo.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Could you (or someone) please post the link (3+ / 0-)

    for that list. I'm not saying I don't believe it but.. that does seem rather odd.

    Of course any action taken by that list would require the press, the Republicans, and even the public at large to get over their hangups on calling white people "terrorists". The shooters in mass killings are doing that, using terror as part of their attack. They want something, perhaps post-humous fame (notoriety or ignominy really), and use fear/terror as a way to achieve it. But just try to find articles describing the acts as "terrorism". Well, unless it's a Muslim attacking an army base but that just makes my point.

    What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

    by ontheleftcoast on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:07:29 PM PST

  •  What Makes It a Terrorist Attack? (6+ / 0-)

    Terrorism is the use of terror or violence to accomplish something with society that the perpetrators can't accomplish politically or militarily.

    I don't see that the shooter had any kind of personal or societal goal he was trying to drive via the mass murders; he wasn't part of a cell or movement trying to achieve anything.

    He just wanted to kill a bunch of people.

    Not to say that mass murder isn't important, but it's very different from terrorism and probably requires some very different methods to prevent.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:12:18 PM PST

    •  Terrorism is the intentional infliction of terror (0+ / 0-)

      regardless of the goal or lack thereof.  In this case a self-centered loser/psycho/outsider did have a terrorist goal--to make himself feel important and powerful for 15 minutes.  To get attention.  Not so very different from little loser Timmy McVeigh and his twisted/juvenile psychology.  Does anyone believe little Timmy really cared about the supposed political context of his terrorism?  Nah.  It was just an excuse for an angry juvenile loser to act out.  That's all terrorism ever really is.

      •  But anybody who kills anybody (4+ / 0-)

        creates a sense of terror in the victim. Based on your definition, any time that a person makes another person terrified, an act of terror has occurred. Not sure that I buy into that worldview.

        •  Consider the scope of the terror though (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Autonomeritus

          One person killing one person generates, to restate your words, a "localized terror". The terror felt in the wake of the Aurora or Newton shootings went even beyond the borders of this country. That should definitely be considered in judging how to handle the response. Mind you I think we're barking after the wrong dogs (or some other mangled metaphor) with mass shootings. They're a tiny fraction of the gun violence problem in America. But the idea put forth in this diary is somewhat interesting. Having the President use even the threat of invoking parts of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act against the gun lobby/Republicans as a bargaining chip in fiscal cliff negotiations would certainly shake things up.

          What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

          by ontheleftcoast on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:55:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Once again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doc2, phillies

    we remove the first four and last two letters from your screen name, and we've characterized your diary accurately.

    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

    by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:14:53 PM PST

    •  Oh come on, that comment has no merit itself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      You can do better than that. Do you think someone like Aurora shooter wasn't trying to terrorize people? That shooting up a school in Newton wasn't designed to cause fear and panic? Those perpetrators wanted to create chaos, panic, and mayhem. Argue that the executive orders themself are bogus. Something. But your response here is nearly an ad hominem.

      What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

      by ontheleftcoast on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:20:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Take the last three digits (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      from your screen name, and we have the value of your comments, your opinions, and your politics respectively.

  •  Ever notice how... (7+ / 0-)

    when there's a suggestion for Obama to circumvent Congress it's all good, and yet Bushco doing the very same deed is impeachable offenses, which should be also taken-up with The Hague War Crimes Tribunal?

    We either have a nation of laws, accountability and transparency - or we have a nation ruled by Juntas and Cabals.
    Secret detention, contractors working as badge-less enforcers, torture, and warrantless search and seizure, and detention without trial - but enough about recent history, and the Occupy Movement.

    •  How is he circumventing Congress? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Autonomeritus

      From what I can tell it appears that Congress gave the President this authority as part of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Sure, they gave it to Bush never imagining a Democrat would ever be elected to the presidency again but it's hardly going around Congress if that's the case. In fact the argument could be made that by not acting to protect schools from terrorism he's defying Congress.

      What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

      by ontheleftcoast on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:06:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so you're defending the USA PATRIOT Act (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Puha ekapi, PavePusher

        as Constitutional?  Dude.  WTF.
        It boggles my mind that this whole shit, including the War on Drugs wasn't shit-canned in the first four years of the Obama Presidency.
        We've a (D) Senate, and this shit is still law?

        Kabuki theatre, that's all we have for governance.

        •  Nope, never said it was (0+ / 0-)

          Nice deflection though. 5 stars for that.

          What I said is it wasn't going around Congress. Big difference. They've said, "Please Mr. President, do this thing", And while it may be the stupidest thing in the world it isn't going around them, they've already stepped out of the way.

          This next piece is important -- the President doesn't have to do one damn thing, not a single thing you or I would call un-Constitutional. He doesn't have to ban a single type of ammo. He merely has to threaten them with the provisions that Congress has granted him.

          This will, in my opinion, result in two actions. The first being they'll agree to various other measures at the bargaining table. And secondly they'll get serious about gutting empirical powers for the President. I see it as a win-win.

          What's wrong with America? I'll tell you. Everything Romney said was pre-chewed wads of cud from Republicans from the last 30 years and yet he managed thru a combination of racism and selling the (false) hope of riches to get 47% of the national vote.

          by ontheleftcoast on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:48:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Good luck n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Trade always exists for the traders. Any time you hear businessmen debating "which policy is better for America," don’t bend over. -George Carlin-

    by not4morewars on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:31:17 PM PST

  •  Sorry, but we're not in a national (4+ / 0-)

    crisis. The incidents are horrible, and we should pass legislation to lower their incidence, but this is no time for us to go nuts 911-style. We just went through all that shit and it was a bad idea to begin with.

  •  Your claims are complete nonsense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas

    Most of these items are currently exceedingly unlikely to occur, or are in no sense threats to our national security.  No nation shows any sign of planning to attack us (the reverse is not true).

    Let's consider some serious threats to our national security:

    The military-industrial welfare warfare state, which launches American wars in country after country after country, and believes that presidential diktats should replace our constitution.

    The national security state, which reads every email, saves every web page, and wants to impose Stalinist travel paper requirements to use a railroad train or an intercity bus.

    sea level rise and climate change due to atmospheric composition changes

    emergence of a competing nation with an economy larger than ours and a manufacturing capacity far larger than ours -- steel production is a classic number.

    re-invention of a de facto gold standard -- in the form of a Euro that individual nations cannot print -- by the EU

    astonishing diminution of our position in science and technology, as witness relative national scientific citation rates

    failure to motivate young Americans to enter science and engineering, as witness foreign student dominance of our university doctoral programs.

    Know-nothingism, this time in the form of global warming, denial evolution denial

    Media circuses, notably coverage of serial killers, actresses, and athletic types -- if you do not believe me, try comparing with English.aljazeera.com

    You are undoubtedly a well-meaning person, but your proposal fits in my first national security threat.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:44:24 PM PST

    •  What planet (0+ / 0-)

      are you on?

      >Most of these items are currently exceedingly unlikely to occur, or are in no sense threats to our national security.

      Other than #1, most of the things on the list have actually happened within the last 10 years.

      If you don't think they're security threats, well let's just say I'm glad you're not in charge.

      As far as "nonsense"... well, no. Biden said today Obama is considering doing more or less exactly what is described herein.  That means the Administration as a whole has vetted the option and thinks it's viable (aka "good sense"). These are the smart, experienced, calculating people who actually are in charge, so you should probably pay attention and reconsider your subject line.

  •  Funny how Ft Hood doesn't count in your list. And (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    that guy didn't even use an "assault weapon".  I smell "agenda".

    And why are children intrinsically more important than, say, you,

  •  I gotta say.... (0+ / 0-)

    This diary was as dumb as a bag of clinkers.

    I want my money back.

  •  An executive order enforcing the word keep in the (0+ / 0-)

    2nd amendment.

    Please sign my petition in my sig line.

    Keep your guns.  No, I mean keep your guns.

    Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

    by 88kathy on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:50:15 PM PST

  •  This is no drama Obama you are talking to. (0+ / 0-)

    Please reconsider signing my petition.

    It's not perfect, and even if it was it would never be adopted in tact.

    It's a novel and useful concept.

    Sign my White House Petition Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment We don't have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with gun owners controlling their guns.

    by 88kathy on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:58:20 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site