Political theatre for progressives

So apparently, the House Democrats are having a sit in about gun control.

Sometimes I feel like gun control is political theatre for liberals / leftists / progressives in the same way that bathroom bills, abortion, and sharia law issues are political theatre for conservatives / right wingers / culture fascists.

Gun control does not challenge entrenched moneyed interests. Gun control does not impact American imperialism abroad. Gun control does not stop political and economic elite impunity.

So we see the Democrats making some noise on it.

But I didn’t see any of these Democrats sitting on the House floor when we refused to prosecute the TBTF banks. I didn’t see them sitting on the House floor when we invaded Iraq. And I didn’t see them sitting on the House floor when Guantanamo Bay become a torture center. No, I am not impressed. This is not progression. This is theatre.

Guns

Every time a mass shooting happens, I am infuriated that we let another asshole get his hands on a gun and I instinctively want more gun control. Then I remember what a godawful job the state does of protecting racial, sexual, and gender minorities. Indeed, they’re often the ones handing out the violence, in giant heaping portions. And then I become that much more conflicted. With Trump perhaps about to become president, with Americans visiting Japanese internment camps excited about the prospect of Muslim internment, how can we possibly willingly disarm ourselves? This cannot be the only line of defense, but will the state be interested in any other argument?

The counter argument (one that I’ve posed myself repeatedly) is that our massive proliferation of guns has done NOTHING to protect our civil rights from eroding since 9/11.

But then the counter argument to that is that minorities have purposefully disarmed themselves and put ourselves at the mercy of the state – the guns, and the thought of armed struggle, is generally the province of racist, sexist, awful assholes.

And then the counter argument to that is that minorities (any type) can’t survive a shooting war with privileged people and the state.

But then the counter argument to that is that Iraqis and Afghanis just pantsed us in the Middle East.

Then the counter argument to that is that they only pantsed us because our military made an active decision to not butcher every man woman and child – they made an attempt to win hearts and minds.

And then the counter argument to that is that, well wouldn’t the military show the same restraint here if it came down to that?

And then I look and history and the answer is “nah, not really.”

And then we ask ourselves “Shouldn’t we try to be better?”

And then we ask ourselves “At what cost? Can we even survive being ‘better’ when so much is at stake??”

How much is pacifism a privilege of the cis and white?

How much is armed struggle a fantasy of the cis and white?

How much is relying on the state for protection a privilege of the cis and white?

And can we, as a society, continue to pay the awful cost of being armed to the teeth when in fact, our liberty erodes daily?

But with how badly our state handles the rights and freedoms of oppressed people (Brock Turner, anyone?) can we ask those populations to wait for the state to come to their senses?

But will provoking the state by arming yourself lead to a positive outcome?

Counterargument: no provocation was required for the violence currently taking place.

Summation? None.