Earlier today, you probably saw Dan's piece in which he proposes that "the solution" is to vet and raise a force of "20 million trained, armed, citizen marshals." Obviously, it's easy to understand the impulse behind the suggestion. We're all eager to find a solution to the terrorism and mass shootings, as well as the daily violence that plagues America's Democrat-controlled urban centers.
But Dan's wrong.
This is exactly what we don't need. It's as bad an idea now as it was back in 2008 - only then it was Barack Obama trotting it out during campaign stops: (scroll down for video)
I understand that Dan's not advocating we go this far down the very creepy "civilian military" slope, but he's still advocating something that's unnecessary and won't really provide the solution he promises.
Here's why:
1. It fails to address the problem. Only the symptoms.
Right now we're saddled with a president and administration that refuses to acknowledge the fundamental truth of our time: Islam is a problem. Please note that I didn't say "radical Islam." Yes, I'm well aware that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful. I'm also well aware that the religion - globally - trends easily toward the worst forms of totalitarianism. Progressives will try to equivocate, but there's simply no sane way to argue that the world's other great religions currently present the same set of issues.
Even at its most moderate, Islam contains standards, practices and prohibitions that are simply incompatible with a free and open society. These include sexual segregation, a wide variety of niche-specific discriminations, and anti-free speech diktats. Yes, other religions may advise specific moral teachings with which we may disagree, but Islam is unique in that it seeks to be both a religious system as well as a system of law and government. The concept of "turning the other cheek" is in short supply, and it also tends to be frighteningly stringent in its assessment of those who reject its world view.
I'm not suggesting we "crack down" on Muslims, or catalog them, or any of the tropes that progressives love to accuse conservatives of embracing. We're a free country. You're allowed to believe whatever you want and worship as you see fit. However, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to endorse your faith, and we don't have to turn a blind eye to the problems that stem from it.
Dan's suggestion that we embrace a civilian force to deal with issues of crime and violent radicalization doesn't get anywhere near addressing the problem of why killers and terrorists are committing such heinous acts. It only offers the notion that someone will, hopefully, be around to "shoot a shooter."
That's simply a game of radical whack-a-mole, not a solution. A real "solution" will be one that roots out and stops radicals before they pop. Similarly, we need to address the causes of everyday crime and stop pretending that bans, controls and a tighter grip will end it.
As long the country continues to toe its current politically correct line, none of that will happen.
2. We already have a Second Amendment. Follow it.
Citizens already have the right to keep and bear arms. There's no reason to create a 20 million-member deputized force, since we already have the ability to do that ourselves. If you want to arm and train yourself, you're free to do so.
Progressives hate that, and they're trying everything they can to limit that right, but it is - as liberals love to say - "settled law."
Our time, money and effort would be better spent shoring up our existing rights that granting the government more power over them.
3. Dan's idea will eventually amount to de facto gun control.
He assures us that "Deputizing citizen marshals would in no way imply that the gun rights of anyone not deputized are lessened." That's nice, in theory, but we all know how government works. It never stops at "step one."
Eventually, progressives would argue that someone who can't pass the security test to be deputized shouldn't have access to weapons at all. If you look at the IRS targeting of conservatives, you'll have a pretty good idea of how the approval process could be used to ensure that only the "politically acceptable" would be admitted to the program. Dan's plan would be the foot-in-the-door that could allow them to limit the Second Amendment rights of everyone else.
On top of that, this is the same government that's already failed in its vetting of refugees, visa applicants, and asylum seekers - as well as, yes, gun buyers. Why would we assume that the deputy-vetting process would be any more successful?
4. Totalitarian governments come to pass because people give them the building blocks they need to exist.
Finally, the biggest reason not to embrace Dan's plan is just this: History shows us that totalitarian regimes come to power because the populace gives them the building blocks needed to do so. Give up your rights out of fear, and you'll be on a well-trod statist path.
I'm not making a simple, sweeping, and pedestrian argument like "Dan wants an army of brown shirts," because that's not what he's saying, but the corollaries are there.
Dan's 20 million deputies would no doubt start out to do exactly what Dan suggests they should. But they'd be an easily manipulated force should the right (or more accurately, wrong) sort of leader come along. Why would our nation want to establish a Frankenstein that one can so easily imagine turning against its creator?
The bottom line here is that there's probably no single answer to our current problems. But until we're convinced that the government is doing everything it's currently authorized to do, no one should seek to grant them expanded powers.
We're faced with enemies who seek to keep us fearful as they limit or destroy our freedoms. We should never embrace "solutions" that may eventually help them accomplish that goal.
Earlier today, you probably saw Dan's piece in which he proposes that "the solution" is to vet and raise a force of "20 million trained, armed, citizen marshals." Obviously, it's easy to understand the impulse behind the suggestion. We're all eager to find a solution to the terrorism and mass shootings, as well as the daily violence that plagues America's Democrat-controlled urban centers.
But Dan's wrong.
This is exactly what we don't need. It's as bad an idea now as it was back in 2008 - only then it was Barack Obama trotting it out during campaign stops: (scroll down for video)
