Skip to main content

Before I get to the point of this post, let me offer my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the shooting at the theater in Aurora, Colorado this morning.  I also would like to offer up my prayers to all the victims of this tragedy.  I define the victims to include those who were injured and, with the exception of the gunman, all those who were present and their families.  I realize that by the title of this post, my meaning may be taken by some of the victims to trivialize, demean, or capitalize on their pain.  For that, I apologize.

I know very little about what happened.  The media admits to knowing not much more.  However, one of the very first things I heard this morning following the simple accounting of the dead and wounded, was a call NOT to politicize this.  I may be wrong, but "politicizing" a shooting always sounds to me as though it means, "don't call for stricter gun control laws."  Those who say we shouldn't politicize this with that meaning are, by definition, politicizing it.

Since this is an election year, the next thing mentioned by the media was the response from the candidates, and speculation about what they would say about it at public events.  Regardless of what the President and Governor say, and by now they have both spoken, as politicians, every word is political.  This includes their expressions of sympathy and offers of comfort.  That is not to question their sincerity, it is just fact.

The media is now shifting into "Why" mode.  They are wondering what could have motivated this gunman and whether or not he acted alone.  Personally, I don't care about the why right now.  All I care about is the fact that, as of this writing, 12 lives were taken, 50 other people were wounded, and hundreds more were put in jeopardy.  I have written often that I believe the primary purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens.  I also believe that the Constitution was written with that express purpose in mind.

The National Rifle Association will no doubt express their regrets about the tragedy, but then stress that this is no reason for new restrictions on gun owners.  They will likely vigorously defend their Second Amendment right to bear arms, and may even assert that more armed citizens could have prevented or at least mitigated this tragedy.  Let me say two things about that.  First, your Second Amendment right to own a gun should be trumped by my unalienable right not to need one.  Second, President Reagan was surrounded by the best trained, best armed men in the world and he was still nearly killed by a  gunman.

Some may claim that I do not have an unalienable right not to need a gun.  They may cite The Declaration of Independence mentioning "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as my unalienable rights.  What they are forgetting are the words that proceed them.  To wit, "that among these are."  This implies that there are many unalienable rights that Mr. Jefferson did not specifically enumerate.  

So why politicize this tragedy?  It seems to me that as Americans, we believe inherently in our liberty.  That belief is so ingrained in us that we can become complacent, only acknowledging threats when they become personal.  Who among us goes to the movies?  Who might go to a shopping center where a local politician is making an appearance?  Who gets on an airplane?  Who goes to school?

There are many threats to our liberties that go unperceived.  We are okay with Voter ID laws, warrant-less wiretaps, and indefinite detentions because they are not going to happen to us.  However, welfare and healthcare are examples of the government making us dependent on them.  To enforce this coming dependency they are going to seize our guns.

The number of people killed in America by guns every year is many times the number killed on 9/11.  It can happen to me and it can happen to you.  Carrying a gun is not the most effective method of prevention.  Limiting access to guns does a much better job.  Congress recently debated a bill that would have forced states to honor other states concealed-carry laws.  New York Times columnist, Gail Collins wrote a piece responding to an elected official from the midwest who felt this law would make New York's Central Park safer.  She pointed out that New York City actually had fewer gun deaths than this official's state.

The Gun Lobby wants more guns; guns in school, guns in church, guns in bars.  They protested discrimination by wearing their guns to a Starbucks.  Discrimination?  Really?  Is "No shirt, no shoes, no service" discrimination?  If I walk into Starbucks naked, it can't kill anybody (well, maybe with laughter); someone walking in with a gun can.

Trayvon Martin would be alive today if George Zimmerman did not have a gun.  The majority of those shot and killed by people claiming defense under Stand Your Ground laws were unarmed and deserve to be alive today.  Our government is failing to protect these peoples right to life.  What will it take to change this?  Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, Columbine.  Politicize every single one.  Let us honor the victims who survived and he memories of those who didn't every day, by trying to ensure they are the last.

It can happen to you, your husband or wife, your brother or sister, your children, your parents, or anybody you care about.  Politicize Aurora until everyone gets that message.  Keep politicizing it until everyone understands that while people kill people, people with guns find it a lot easier.

The next time this happens, and it will happen again, one of the first things we will hear is "Don't politicize it."  That is why it will happen again.  Might I suggest we exchange that sentiment for another one:  "Never again!"

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

  •  Time to take the man who hollered fire in the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alguien

    crowded theater off the air.

    here

    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

    by 88kathy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:21:37 PM PDT

  •  Wow. Tone Deaf and Tasteless. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, althea in il
  •  I Am A RKABA Guy Here* (0+ / 0-)

    But I have to admit it is getting harder and harder for me to have that stance.

    Now you might think this comparison isn't accurate, but I think it is. I am 42. Huge video game guy. I tend to like puzzle games. But at times I like to go kill things, often people. There are many that would like to ban these games. Often the same as those that want to ban guns (not saying you BTW).

    But just cause .001 of those that play video games go kill people, I don't think they should be banned. Just like the majority of people that own guns don't kill people either.

    You know, just sayhing ...

    *I don't own a guy and fired one once I should note.

    When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

    by webranding on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:21:49 PM PDT

    •  If I might say... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Erich Bloodaxe RN

      The debate too often becomes reduced to either no regulation on firearms at all or total ban and confiscation. And neither side is actually arguing for either of these positions. The vast majority of us believe that responsible gun owners have a right to keep and bear arms. But most of us also believe that more can and should be done to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people.

      Obama is not coming for anyone's guns. And anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a fool. The right wing uses this accusation for fund raising and keeping Republican voters in line.

      Should our government do more to keep guns out of the hands of the unstable and criminal. Yes they should. Should the government do more to make sure that guns are operated safely and accurately. Yes they should. But that does not mean taking guns away from responsible people. And by that I mean people who are not unstable and are not criminal. But aren't reasonable requirements like gun training also a good idea?

      Here is Florida the gun lobby made it illegal for a doctor to ask about gun safety at home with patients. Because the gun lobby feared doctors turning gun owners over to the police on trumped up charges of child abuse. Even though that situation never happened. This is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Talk about government butting into business. But this is the way the debate has been driven. So that reasoned discourse on this topic is impossible. A smokescreen to obscure the real issues. Like so many other issues obscured by taking the debate to 11. To a level of irrationality that prevents real debate from happening.

      •  well, but then (0+ / 0-)

        you run into the problem that incremental gun control is marketed with promises that, on the face of them, can only be filled by a complete gun ban.  Gun owners read that and realize "there's no way you can do that unless you confiscate everybody's guns."  And they're right.

        Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

        by happymisanthropy on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 03:56:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  How many people have been killed by a video game? (0+ / 0-)

      A video game is not a weapon.  People can do stupid things because of things that they do in MMO's - I recall hearing about a sword attack in one of the Asian countries over something that went on in an MMO.  But no video game has ever been used to kill anyone to my knowledge.

      And, btw, the vast majority of 'ban violent video games'  types are rightwingers, and very few of them  seem likely to have an interest in banning guns.

  •  Stealing this (0+ / 0-)

    "First, your Second Amendment right to own a gun should be trumped by my unalienable right not to need one."

    T&R

    I'm a student at the University of Arizona where they just tried to allow guns on campus under the premise that if there was a gunman, there would be a room full of students ready to take him on. I know my peers, no freaking way could any of us have the strength of a police officer to take down a gunman.

    When the operation of the machine becomes so odious that you can't take part,you've got to put your bodies upon the gears;you got to make it stop.Indicate to the people who run it that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all

    by YoungArizonaLiberal on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:40:40 PM PDT

  •  what does that even mean? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, VClib

    "by my unalienable right not to need one."

    What would it take for government to create a land where people never need a gun? maybe in utopia..

  •  Only Rethugs are allowed to (0+ / 0-)

    politicize, dontcha know.

    Hate speech, promotes hate, promotes violence.

    Especially in the crazy.

    But we're not supposed to talk about that.

    Due to recent cutbacks, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

    by cyeko on Fri Jul 20, 2012 at 12:52:37 PM PDT

  •  It is political. (0+ / 0-)

    Whether or not people 'want it to be' or 'dislike it'.

    Politics is about who has power and how that power is applied or misapplied to others.  The ease of obtaining weapons that can cause such damage in such a short time is thus inherently political.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site