Skip to main content

Imagine it:

A national tragedy occurs, innocent Americans killed. As a people we are shocked, upset, angry, hurting. We barely have all the facts, but what we do know is that a horrifying crime was committed, an attack on innocent people that wounded us all. Something must be done!

Amid the maelstrom of words and emotions, an enemy emerges. A narrative is built against that enemy. despite the lack of evidence that they were responsible for the attack. They have weapons that can be used in a similar attack. They must be disarmed. They must submit to restrictions, sanctions, weapons inspections. We demand it, because we're convinced that doing so might prevent another tragedy whether there's any evidence of that or not. Because we have to do something. The wound is too deep and raw to accept any inability to act, even if against a scapegoat.

The enemy protests it's innocence and repeats that it had nothing to do with the horrifying attack. It's sympathetic, but it refuses to take blame for something it insists it had nothing to do with. It asserts it's right to possess weapons for self-defense and refuses to cooperate with what it feels are unreasonable demands. It's prepared to accept certain reasonable limits on type and number of weapons, and restrictions on who may possess them. It's certainly amenable to disarming criminals who would attack innocents. It in no way supports these rogue actors and does not support arming them. However, they refuse to accept collective punishment for the crimes of an isolated few. And they rightfully fear that the reasonable restrictions proposed are merely a pretext for disarming them entirely and leaving them utterly defenseless. They worry that the enforcement regime will cause them harm, and will be an unbearable assault on their rights and freedoms. They don't trust that it will stop at merely reasonable restrictions, and that the more they surrender now the less they'll be able to resist later.

But we will not accept those excuses! They must be disarmed! If they will not cooperate willingly, we'll bring the full weight of law to bear against them. And if that does not work, we'll enforce the law, oh yes we will. We will go to war to take their weapons that we have declared unlawful and we will capture and kill all who resist.

Sound familiar? It should. But it's not 9/11/01. It's 12/14/12.

This time, the target isn't Iraq and "weapons of mass destruction", it's fellow Americans and "weapons of mass murder". But the call for pre-emptive, nay, preventative war is the same. Will we let loose the dogs of war again in our pain and anger? Will we once again accept the casualties of a War on Guns (here we go again with that whole war on a concept thing) as mere collateral damage? Will we accept the demonizing of the "enemy" as a justification of stripping them of their rights, their freedom, even their lives? Will we destroy and confiscate their property, capture and imprison them if they fail to surrender and kill them if they resist?

Don't tell me it can't happen here. Ask anyone on the wrong end of the War on Drugs how it works. Ask any of the millions of prisoners of war in that ongoing fiasco, look at the lives it's destroyed and the property and livelihoods wiped out, take a look at the long list of those who have died under the gunfire of law enforcement. Look at the families and careers and communities shattered in that war.

And get ready to see it all over again if this War on Guns gets off the ground. And like the War on Drugs, and Prohibition before it, expect to see the demand for the new contraband not diminish, the supply go underground but remain readily available, and the new black marketeers enriched and criminal empires built from the spoils. Expect innocents to die in the crossfire. Expect the collateral damage in the War to be far in excess of the harm it's trying to prevent. Because that's what happens in a war of prohibition. Every. Single. Time. We've done this enough to know how it works, and how it ends. We understand the expensive and destructive quagmire and how difficult it is to withdraw once engaged.

And yet, so many of us are prepared to do it all over again, in the name of the victims of the attack that hurt us so. Like wounded animals we're ready to lash out at anything nearby in our rage and pain.

Just like we were in the wake of 9/11. Ask the Iraqis and Afghans how well that worked out. Ask the dead soldiers, and the collateral casualties on the ground. Ask the victims of the economic destruction the war has wrought. And look at the smiles on the faces of the war profiteers as they count their ill-gotten gold.

Then ask yourselves if you really want to do this again.

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

  •  Tip Jar (0+ / 0-)

    "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

    by DarthMeow504 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 02:32:52 PM PST

  •  What a vivid imagination. (0+ / 0-)

    How about this: We regulate guns like we regulate cars.  Mandatory training, licensing and registration.  And maybe we regulate ammunition like we regulate cold medicine, where if you try to buy a lot at once, people might get curious about what you need it for.

    Plenty of room to play in the wide valley that lies between the steep crags known as anarchy and oppression.  That valley is where civilizations are built, and this is but one possibility among many.  But histrionic panic attacks like this are part of why we can't have an adult conversation about guns in this country.  It's always either a free-for-all or a total ban with some people.

    If you can prove that the founding fathers wanted a world in which an untrained civilian could walk around with about the same degree of lethality as a modestly sized infantry battalion of their day, I'll eat a bug.

    "If Mitt takes office, sooner or later, the Zomnies will come for all of us." -Joss Whedon

    by quillsinister on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:27:36 PM PST

    •  Very reasonable ideas (0+ / 0-)

      I am absolutely, 100% in favor of intelligent regulations like the ones you propose. I'm also in favor of things we have now like criminal background checks and bars on ownership for convicted felons and the mentally ill.

      I would LOVE to see smart gun technology that does not allow a weapon to fire in any hands but those of the lawful owner, and automatically sends a signal to law enforcement when it's fired with a handy GPS locator. Sure, guns could still be stolen but they'd have to be hacked by a skilled and well equipped technician before they could be used. It would make it more difficult at least, and prevent things like kids firing weapons they find in parent's closets and such.

      However, I suggest you talk to the "ban all guns!" and "repeal the 2nd amendment!" people on this site and elsewhere, because they're certainly fueling the fear that registration would be a precursor to confiscation. It's happened before, and it's not at all far-fetched to think it can happen again. Really, given the absolutist rhetoric on the anti-gun side, is it any wonder gun owners are distrustful?

      When gun owners speak of a slippery slope, it's because there are so many actively trying to push us down it.

      "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

      by DarthMeow504 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:20:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site