Bang Bang Crazy, Part 12: Red Lines

They’ll cheer us in the streets of Chicago!

Six days in and he's already threatening martial law.

 

If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

I will send in the Feds! and he put an exclamation mark on the end of it so you know he means business.

I will send in the Feds.

And so, the man conservatives elected because they feared Big Government is, less than a week into his administration, threatening to invade an American city and impose martial law…

What?

What’s that? You have a problem with my use of the term martial law? You think I might be exaggerating for effect?

Interesting.

I’d refer you conservatives back to the whole Jade Helm thing, but I know how selective your memories are.

I will send in the Feds.

Look here, Trump said if Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible carnage I will send in the Feds. Now if a guy who loves him some Vladimir Putin isn’t talking about martial law, then what exactly do you think he is talking about?

What?

Oh, I see.

So, then what’s the plan?

No really, what’s the plan? Send in the Fed, stop the violence, law and order, right? Come now, let’s walk that through all the way to the end. Send in the Fed: Is he talking about sending in federal aid? Money? Social workers? Urban development?

No? Not that. No, of course not.

Well, then what do you think he’s talking about?

Now now, I can see your fingers crossed behind your back and we’re never going to get anywhere unless you start being honest.

You know what he’s talking about.

I know what he’s talking about.

So let’s just dispense with the bullshit, shall we?

Trump is talking about Chicago.

He’s talking about law and order.

Trump is talking about gun violence.

Gang violence.

Black thugs. Black on Black crime. Two hundred and twenty-eight shootings. Forty-two murders by gun less than a month into the new year.

That’s what he’s talking about.

And he’s threatening to send Federal forces under his control to end it.

 

He’s talking about military force.

 

When Trump says, “Send in the Fed” he’s talking about sending in troops.

Because that’s the only option conservatives will support. Not aid. Not money. Not education. Not reasonable gun control. Force.

This is typical of the same mindset that thinks you can carpet bomb other countries into democracy by dropping freedom from B-52s.

This is the same old conservative idea that you can storm ashore, burn the place down, and then ... just walk away, expecting peaceful robust civilization and stable government and economic vitality to sprout fully formed from the ashes without addressing any of the underlying reasons for the original conflict.

This is the same mindset that had Milwaukee sheriff David Clarke calling peaceful protests – protests consisting of hundreds of thousands without a single arrest – in Washington a “total collapse of the social order.”  

With these people, force is always the answer.  

So don’t tell me Trump isn’t talking about sending in troops, because that’s exactly what he’s talking about.

What you have here is no less than the President of the United States threatening an American city with invasion, with martial law.

Don’t believe me?

I’ll prove it.

Do what I say, or I'll send in ... what?

The options are fairly limited.

Look at the strategic situation:

Trump is obviously talking about conservatives' ongoing obsession with Chicago: Specifically with black gangs and black on black violence. Again, let’s dispense with the bullshit and code words and disingenuous doubletalk. When conservatives – and many liberals – talk about Chicago, they’re talking about black on black violence.

Trump specifically called out gun violence and he sure as shit ain’t talking about law-abiding white gun owners. “Carnage” he said and listed shootings and gun related deaths. That’s what we’re talking about, black thugs, because that’s what conservatives are always talking about when they talk about Chicago. 

Black gangs. Gun violence. 228 shootings. 42 murders.

Let’s at least be that honest.

So, that’s the objective: Black on black violence. Black gangs. Black criminals.

So, that means whoever goes in will have to be armed, organized, and prepared to wade into the worst parts of the city. Tactically, they’ll have to hunt down armed gangs and criminals, building by building, block by block, root them out from their strongholds, distinguish targets from civilians, disarm and contain the terrorists domestic enemy combatants criminals, and they’ll have to have the kind of administrative and intelligence support which allows them to sort the criminals from the innocent (unless we’re just going to kill them all) and then – somehow – impose some sort of social structure on the remainder to prevent immediate reformulation of gangs and violence. That social structure at a minimum will require funding, urban renewal and construction, self-sustaining economic opportunity, education, law enforcement and security, and a functioning sense of involved community at the street level.

 

In military terms: Invasion, occupation, and nation building.

 

Now, the president has limited options when it comes to the assets at his disposal for such an endeavor.

The FBI doesn't have that kind of manpower, command structure, training, or equipment – not even if they co-opt the local police and place them under federal control.

The Department of Homeland Security doesn't either – though arming them up and sending them in to impose martial law would really put a polish on the department's creepy dystopian name.

I digress.

Who does that leave? The Secret Service? The IRS? Fish and Game?

End the violence. Disarm the gangs. Take the guns. Send in the Feds. That’s what your president said.  

And what does that leave?

Who has those kind of numbers, that kind of organization, the kind of command and control and communications and intelligence assets, the  training, the experience, the equipment, the funding, necessary to pacify a city the size of Chicago?

Who?

The National Guard, that’s who.

The National Guard under federal control – in other words: the Army.

 

And that's martial law.

 

And what will the Army do?

How will they fix the horrible “carnage” going on?"

How?

Remember, Trump is talking specifically about gun violence. He said so, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings.

How will the Army under President Trump stop gun violence in Chicago?

No. NO. NO.

Don’t you dare look away.

Don’t you dare move the goalposts.

It's too goddamned late for that. You elected this guy. Now we have to deal with it. So, Trump sends in the Army under federal command to take control of an American city to end gun violence. To hunt down gangs and ... what?

You look me in the eye and you tell me how that works. Block by block. Building by building. Door by door. Tell me how that works.

Because there’s only one way that works.

So, you look me in the eye and you tell me, conservatives, that you're okay with the President of the United States sending in the Army to kill Americans and TAKE THE GUNS.

I want to hear you say it.

You look me in the eye and you tell me, conservatives, why you're okay with the President sending in the Army to kill Americans and take the guns NOW, but you weren't for the last eight years.

 

I want to hear you say it.

You look me in the eye and tell me why it's okay for the President of the United States to talk about taking guns away from people who shouldn't have them, I.E. FEDERAL GUN CONTROL, why that's ok with you now, but it wasn't last month.

I want to hear you say it. I want you to tell me why regulating who can and cannot have guns is totalitarianism under Obama, but not under Trump. I want you to tell me why you called me a fucking commie and liberal scumbag and an un-American traitor when I wrote the previous installments of this series. I want you to tell me why you sent me death threats and threats of violence when I suggested that perhaps we should implement a process that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs and the dangerously mentally ill and those who shouldn’t have access to firearms.

 

 

Do not move the goalposts.

Don't change the subject.

Don't throw out non sequiturs.

Don't engage in logical fallacies.

You tell me why you're okay with Trump threatening to take guns away from Americans.

Go on, I'm all ears.

 

Epilogue:

And so, as I finished typing this, Sean Spicer took to the White House podium:

Ah.

Impulsive threat.

Trump’s impulsive threat to send in the Feds.

Because our president is the kind of person who makes impulsive threats. Always a good trait in a guy who controls the nukes, eh? Sure and I’m digressing.

If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

If Chicago doesn’t do what I say, I’ll … send them the help they’ve been requesting!

So less how we got into Baghdad and more like how we got into Vietnam?

Sorry, and it’s like I can’t stop with the digression. Won’t happen again.

Trump’s impulsive threat was really an offer provide requested assistance?

I guess that’s one of those “alternate” facts Sean Spicer is so fond of.

What?

Oh, right, I did promise. Sorry.

Sure. Let’s go with the walk-back.

Trump, he’s like a smart guy even if he can’t express himself in a 140 characters without sounding like the little goof in pajamas running North Korea, but sure. Ok. Trump’s impulsive threat is really an offer for federal (non-military?) assistance to an American city to help curb violence and I’m completely wrong.

Well all right.

In my defense, I keep hearing that the most admirable thing about Trump is that he speaks clearly and he says what he means, but …

What? What now.

Oh, right. Dammit. That’s turning out to be a hard promise to keep.

Anyway, call me crazy, but isn’t that exactly what big government is supposed to do? Provide assistance to local communities?

Isn’t that exactly what liberals have been asking for?

So why hasn’t it already been done? Why the threat that’s really not a threat?

If this is really what the new Republican President meant, if he’s not talking about military force but rather funding, urban renewal and construction, self-sustaining economic opportunity, education, law enforcement and security, and a functioning sense of involved community at the street level, if that’s what Donald Trump meant, then what the hell are we waiting for? What the hell are we arguing about?

Why isn’t this being done in every city?

Why are conservatives like David Clarke sneering at all those women marching peacefully in the street? Aren’t they demanding exactly what Sean Spicer just said his boss meant. Equal rights. Education. Strong communities. An end to violence. Gun control. Yeah?

If that’s what Trump really meant, then hell, I’m in.

 

But, I want to hear conservatives say it.

 

I want to hear Trump say it.

You look me in the eye and tell me that’s what you meant.

Go on, I’m all ears.

 

---

Addendum 1:  Every time I write one of these, I hope it's the last. But it never is, there's always another massacre. Always.
The Seven Stages of Gun Violence
The Bang Bang Crazy Series:
Part 1, What we need, see, are more guns, big fucking guns
Part 2, Gun violence isn't the exception in America, it's who we are
Part 3, Sandy Hook, the NRA, and a gun in every school
Part 4, More dead kids and why we have laws
Part 5, Gun control and a polite society
Part 6, The Christopher Donner rampage, they needed killin'
Part 7, Still more dead kids and let's print our own guns!
Part 8, Let's try blaming the victim, shall we?
Part 9, Armed soldiers on post, sure, nothing to go wrong there.
Part 10, Big Damned Heroes!
Part 11, Two in the Bush
What do we do about it? How do we change our culture of gun violence? Bang Bang Sanity

Addendum 2: As noted elsewhere, I’ve  been around guns my entire life. My dad taught me to shoot when I was a kid – in fact the very first gun I ever fired was my dad’s prized black powder .75 caliber smooth bore Civil War trench piece when I was about four years old. I still own my very first gun, bought from Meyer’s Thrifty Acres in Jenison, Michigan, for me by my dad when I was fourteen years old – a lever action Winchester 30-30. I got my first deer with that gun.  I grew up shooting, at home, in the Boy Scouts, hunting, target shooting, plinking, with friends and with family.  Thirty years ago I joined the military and spent my entire life there. I know more than a little about guns. I’m a graduate of the Smith & Wesson Rangemaster Academy, the nation’s premier firearms instructor school. I’m a certified armorer and gunsmith. I’ve attended pretty much every boarding officer and gun school the military has. I hold both the Expert Pistol and Expert Rifle Medals. I’ve taught small arms and combat arms to both military and civilians for nearly thirty years now. I’ve fired damned near everything the US military owns, from the old .38 revolver to a US Navy Aegis Guided Missile Cruiser’s 5” main battery – and everything in between. I can still field strip a Colt .45 M-1911 pistol and put it back together in under a minute, blindfolded – I happen to own several of them, along with numerous other semi-auto pistols and a number of revolvers. I used to shoot professionally and in competition. I helped to design, test, field, and fire in combat US Military weapons systems. I’ve spent my entire life in places where gun usage is extremely, extremely, common. I have a Concealed Carry Permit. I’m an Alaskan and I typically carry a gun in the wilds of Alaska on a regular basis. I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, a gun is a tool, nothing more. If you feel that I’m ignorant of guns, or that I’m anti-gun, or unAmerican, well, you’re welcome to speak your piece – just so long as you can live with what comes after.